Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.68 seconds)
Sri Rajah Ravu Venkata Mahipathi ... vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 10 December, 1945 cites

The Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Zamindar Of Singampatti on 21 February, 1922

In inclining to the opinion that income from forests was agricultural income, the learned Judges who decided Chief Commissioner of Income-tax v. Zamindar of Singampatti (1922) I.L.R. 45 Mad. 518 (F.B.) were obviously influenced by the opinion which they had formed on the main question, namely, that no other tax beyond that involved in the payment of peishkush could be levied on income derived from a permanently settled estate. There is ample authority for holding that income derived from trees which have grown wild is not agricultural income, but without the aid of authority, we should have no hesitation in saying that to describe it as such would involve a distortion of the meaning of the word " agriculture".
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

The Secretary To The Chief Commissioner ... vs Zemindar Of Singampatti on 21 February, 1922

12. We have now to decide whether the income derived from forests of spontaneous growth and from trees which have grown wild in non-forest areas represents agricultural income within the meaning of the definition given in Section 2(1) of the Income-tax Act. As we have indicated, the learned Judges who decided Chief Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jamindar of Singampatti (1922) I.L.R. 45 Mad. 518 (F.B.) were inclined to the view that income from forests and fisheries would be agricultural income, although they did not decide this question. It is very difficult to see how income from fisheries could be classified as agricultural income.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1