9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether certain sources of income are agricultural and therefore exempted from assessment to Income-tax under Section 4(3)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. 2. Whether income derived from sources not considered at the time of fixing the jama at the Permanent Settlement is assessable for Income-tax purposes. 3. Whether income derived from land in permanently settled states, subject to the exemptions provided by the Legislature, is liable to assessment to Income-tax. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Agricultural Income Exemption The appellant confined his claim for exemption to three items out of the specified ten items, arguing they were agricultural income. The High Court held that none of the three items were exempted as agricultural income, and accordingly, question 1 was answered in the negative. The Board found no materials or reasons to suggest that any of the ten specified items could properly be described as agricultural income within the definition of agricultural income contained in Section 2(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. Therefore, the negative answer given to question 1 was affirmed. Issue 2: Income from Sources Not Considered at Permanent Settlement The majority of the High Court judges held that income derived from sources not taken into consideration at the time of fixing the jama at the Permanent Settlement is assessable for Income-tax purposes, answering question 2 in the affirmative. The Board agreed with this view, stating that the Income-tax Act, 1922, by Sections 6 and 12, brings into charge the income derived from a zamindari and that a zamindar is assessable in respect of income, profits, and gains derived from that source. Issue 3: Liability of Income from Permanently Settled Estates to Income-tax The majority of the High Court judges also held that income derived from land in permanently settled states, subject to the exemptions provided by the Legislature, is liable to assessment to Income-tax, answering question 3 in the affirmative. The appellant argued that the Permanent Settlement of 1793 provided guarantees that the income from his zamindari would not be further taxed beyond the fixed jama. The Board examined the language of the Regulations and the Income-tax Act, 1922, and concluded that the Act does impose a tax on the income of a zamindar derived from his zamindari. The Board found no statement or assurance in the Regulations that a zamindar would be exempt from future general schemes of property taxation or income taxation. They agreed with the view that there was no promise or engagement by the Government to surrender their right to levy a general tax on incomes. Conclusion: The Board concluded that the appeal fails and should be dismissed. Questions 2 and 3 were answered in the affirmative, and question 1 was answered in the negative. The Board advised His Majesty accordingly, with no order as to the costs of the appeal.
|
