9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (1) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... land holding held by it for the years 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62. The tax assessed in respect of the first year is Rs. 72,167, in respect of the second year Rs. 74,248, and in respect of the third year Rs. 73,356. The East Hope Town Estate Co. Ltd. was taxed to Rs. 19,346 for the year 1959-60, Rs. 19,498 for the year 1960-61 and Rs. 20,080 for the year 1961-62. Their assessments were not disturbed up to the stage of appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal "), which while dismissing the second appeal filed by the assessee aforesaid affirmed the appellate orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and thus of the Income-tax Officer. The assessee-companies mentioned above claimed as d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id were using the land for which they are assessed for carrying on the business of tea plantation. Learned counsel submitted in this case that there is a direct relationship between the land holding and the business of manufacturing tea. The correct position with regard to the U.P. large land holdings tax is that it is a tax on holdings and not one on the annual value or capitalised value of the land, nor is it a tax on the person who holds the land : see Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of U.P. It is admitted that the liability to pay the U.P. large land holdings tax exists on a person whether he cultivates his holding or not and whether he plants trees and shrubs on it or not. It is well settled that the tax being on the holding, it is a l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt repelled the submission made on behalf of the Travancore Titanium Product Ltd. on the ground that " every item of expenditure merely because it is connected with the trade may not necessarily be treated as a permissible deduction ". Their Lordships observed that a fairly reliable approach for determining what may be regarded normally as the expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business was suggested in Strong and Co. of Romsey Ltd. v. Woodifield. That was a case of a brewery company owning a licensed house in which it carried on the business of innkeepers. The company had to pay damages to a customer who was, when sleeping in the inn, injured by a falling chimney, the fall of the chimney being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the character of the assessee as a trader, and not as owner of assets, even if they are assets of the business. " It is true that the aforesaid case is not one under the U.P. Large Land Holdings Tax Act, but is one under the Indian Wealth-tax Act, but what their Lordships have said in that case applies to the case before us also. We have already pointed out earlier that there is no direct and intimate connection between the large land holdings tax paid and the business carried on by the two assessees mentioned above, nor was the tax imposed on the assessees in their capacity as traders. Clearly the tax was assessed on the holdings and the assessees were the medium of payment because they were the owners of the holdings. For the reasons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
