9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (10) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he instance of the Revenue, the following common question is referred to us : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the remuneration received by the assessee from Craigmore Ltd. London, as per the terms of the agreement, partakes of the character of agriculture and that rule 8 should be applied while taxing the same ? ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reement, the amounts received by Craig Jones were included in and accounted for by the assessee-firm as its income. The assessee claimed that the amount received from the English company was partly agricultural income in the hands of the assessee and, therefore, rule 8 of the Income-tax Rules is applicable and as a consequence, only 40 per cent. of the amount received which was about Rs. 6,00,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t if received directly by Craig Jones could not have been regarded as agricultural income, it cannot be regarded as agricultural income in the hands of the assessee also. The proximate source for the receipt of the income was not the manufacture of tea or cultivation of lands on which tea is grown. The source was the company which had engaged in that activity of growing and marketing tea and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Privy Council in the case of Premier Construction Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1948] 16 ITR 380 negatived the claim of the managing agent of the company which owned agricultural lands that the remuneration received by the agent was agricultural income. The amounts received by the assessee being remuneration payable by the company which owned agricultural lands to Craig Jones who was its managing director, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
