Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1968 1968 (10) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 81 to 84 of 84 Records

• 1968 (10) TMI 4
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Inclusion of forest land value in the total estate for estate duty purposes.
  2. Definition and classification of "agricultural land" under the Estate Duty Act, 1953.
  3. Burden of proof regarding the classification of land.
  4. Applicability and interpretation of Section 5 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.
  5. Impact of the Estate Duty (Amendment) Act, 1958, and subsequent amendments.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Inclusion of Forest Land Value in the Total Estate for Estate Duty Purposes:
  The primary issue was whether the forest lands should be included in the total value of the estate for the purpose of estate duty. The estate in question belonged to Smt. Jayalakshmi Devi and Shri Madhava Rajah, each holding a one-thirteenth share in the tarwad properties. The assessee argued that forest lands are agricultural lands and thus exempt from estate duty. However, the Appellate Tribunal initially rejected this claim, stating that the definition of "agricultural lands" from the Madras High Court decision in Sarojini Devi v. Sri Kristna did not apply to the Estate Duty Act.
  
  2. Definition and Classification of "Agricultural Land":
  The court emphasized that the term "agricultural land" should be interpreted in its widest significance. Citing various precedents, including Megh Raj v. Allah Rakhia and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy, the court held that the nature of the land, not its current use, determines its classification. The court directed the Appellate Tribunal to establish whether the forest lands were agricultural lands. The Tribunal's supplementary statement indicated that the forest lands were not used for cultivation and lacked evidence to be classified as agricultural lands.
  
  3. Burden of Proof Regarding the Classification of Land:
  The court discussed the burden of proof in tax exemption cases. It was argued that if the claim was for an exemption, the burden of proof lay on the assessee. However, if it was an immunity claim, the revenue had to prove the taxability of the land. The court concluded that the burden was on the revenue to prove that the forest lands were non-agricultural, as Parliament's power to levy estate duty was limited to non-agricultural lands in states not specified in the First Schedule of the Act.
  
  4. Applicability and Interpretation of Section 5 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953:
  Section 5, the charging section of the Estate Duty Act, was analyzed. The court noted that estate duty could only be levied on non-agricultural property unless the state was included in the First Schedule. The Madras Legislature's resolution and subsequent notification by the Central Government added Madras to the First Schedule, making agricultural lands in Madras subject to estate duty from June 6, 1955. The court held that the revenue failed to prove that the forest lands were non-agricultural, thus exempting them from estate duty.
  
  5. Impact of the Estate Duty (Amendment) Act, 1958, and Subsequent Amendments:
  The court addressed a new contention based on Section 30 of the Estate Duty (Amendment) Act, 1958, which stated that the Act would not apply to agricultural land. This section was omitted by the Estate Duty (Amendment) Act, 1960. The court found this provision irrelevant as it was not part of the statute during the relevant period. The court reiterated that agricultural lands in Madras were not subject to estate duty until the state was included in the First Schedule by the June 6, 1955 notification.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court answered the reference question in the negative, ruling against the Controller of Estate Duty, except for the 5,000 acres of rocky land classified as non-agricultural. The judgment emphasized that the burden of proof lay on the revenue to establish the non-agricultural nature of the forest lands, which it failed to do. The parties were directed to bear their own costs, and a copy of the judgment was to be forwarded to the Appellate Tribunal as required by Section 64(4) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.

  ---

• 1968 (10) TMI 3
  

  Expenditure was incurred by the company with a view to earn profits from the same methods and processes as before - this is not a case where the expenditure was incurred with a view to enlarge the goodwill of the company or to permanently improve the assets of the concern - allowable as revenue expenditure

  ---

• 1968 (10) TMI 2
  
  Issues:
  1. Whether the entire income from a business belongs to the assessee or part of it belongs to a separate trust.
  2. Validity of an order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated July 8, 1958, under the signatures of four members.
  
  Analysis:
  The case involved six assessment years, with the question arising whether the assessee was liable for the entire income from a business named Radha Vilas Karyalaya or if part of it belonged to a separate trust named Sri Ram-Lakshman-Janki. The Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld that the assessee was liable for the whole income. The Tribunal referred two questions of law to the High Court, including the validity of the order passed by the Tribunal dated July 8, 1958, under the signatures of four members.
  
  Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal's judgment was signed by four members, with the contention that four members could not constitute a Bench. The Tribunal explained that a special Bench was constituted due to the President's oversight, with all members signing the order. The High Court addressed a preliminary objection that the question referred did not arise under the Income-tax Act, emphasizing that if the Tribunal's judgment was invalid due to the Bench's defect, it would vitiate the judgment. The High Court overruled the objection, holding that the question referred did arise from the Tribunal's judgment.
  
  The High Court analyzed the provisions of the Income-tax Act related to the constitution of Benches of the Appellate Tribunal. It highlighted that a Bench should consist of one judicial member and one accountant member, with provisions for special Benches. The Court concluded that the disposal of appeals by a Bench of four members was not authorized by the statute, rendering the order passed by the Tribunal with four members invalid. The Court emphasized that the appeals needed to be reheard by a properly constituted Bench.
  
  In conclusion, the High Court did not answer question No. 1 due to the need for rehearing the appeals. The answer to question No. 2 was in the negative, declaring the order passed by the Tribunal with four members as invalid. The applicant was awarded costs for the reference.

  ---

• 1968 (10) TMI 1
  

  Plea that the provisions imposing liability to pay advance tax upon an agent of a non-resident infringe the equality clause of the Constitution has no substance - computation of advance tax is not dependent upon the completion of the previous year; it depends upon the rules prescribed by ss. 209, 210 & 212 - Assessee's petition is dismissed

  ---

12345