Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 1962 (8) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1962 (8) TMI 111 - HC - Income Tax

Issues:
1. Whether income from milk derived from mulch cows is agricultural income under the Orissa Agricultural Income Tax Act?
2. Whether a joint family consisting of brothers only includes great-grandsons of a brother?

Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around determining whether income from milk derived from mulch cows qualifies as agricultural income under the Orissa Agricultural Income Tax Act. The court referred to previous decisions by the Supreme Court and a Division Bench of the same court, which established that the term "agriculture" should not encompass dairy farming. Citing the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy and State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Choudhury, the court concluded that income from dairy farming does not constitute agricultural income for the purpose of the Act. Therefore, the court answered the first question in the affirmative.

2. The second issue pertains to the interpretation of a joint family consisting of brothers only under the Orissa Agricultural Income Tax Act. The court relied on a Bench decision in Sridhar Sahu v. The Member-in-charge of Commercial Taxes, which clarified that the term "brothers only" should be construed broadly to include sons of brothers or grandsons of brothers within a joint family. However, the court noted that the definition does not require a surviving coparcener among the original brothers. By comparing the Orissa Act with the Bihar Agricultural Income Tax Act, the court emphasized the inclusive nature of the Orissa Act's definition of "brothers only." Consequently, the court affirmed that a joint family with sons of brothers or grandsons of brothers falls within the scope of the Act. Therefore, the court answered the second question in the affirmative.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the references by directing the department to bear the costs of the reference and affirmed the decisions on both issues. The judgment was delivered by R.L. Narasimham and Das, JJ., with the agreement of Das, J.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates