9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (1) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal in the statement of the case are that this assessment pertains to an ex-Ruler of Bastar, a State which merged in the province of Central Provinces and Berar under the States Merger (Governor's Provinces) Order, 1949, and, according to Notification No. SRO 1620, dated May 14, 1954, in pursuance of para. 13 of the above Order of 1979 at item 39, the palace at Jagdalpur of the Ruler of Bastar had been declared as the official residence of the Ruler. It is stated that in the return of income, the income from house property was originally shown as Rs. 50,055 and Rs. 57,088 which was subsequently revised to Rs. 13,473 and Rs. 14,135 for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77, respectively. In the course of the assessment proceedings, it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this reference, we are concerned with the language of s. 10(19A) of the Income-tax Act, as amended by the Rulers of Indian States (Abolition of Privileges) Act, 1972. Section 10(19A) reads: "(19A) the annual value of any one palace in the occupation of Ruler, being a palace, the annual value whereof was exempt from income tax before the commencement of the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, by virtue of the provisions of the Merged States Taxation Concessions) Order, 1949, or the Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950, or, as the case may be, the Jammu and Kashmir (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1958 : Provided that for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April 1, 1972, the annual value of every such pal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be contended that the Legislature further intended the splitting up of the rental value of one palace also in parts in respect of occupation and it was, therefore, contended that if it is one palace and is in occupation, further splitting up is not contemplated within the meaning of the language of sub-s. (19A) of s. 10. Learned counsel contended that in Raja Ajit Singh of Jhabua v. CIT[1983] 140 ITR 138 (MP), which is a decision of this court, this matter has not been considered at all. In that reference, the only question was from what date effect can be given to the amendment incorporated in sub-s. (19A) of s. 10 and it is, therefore, of no assistance so far as this case is concerned. The Delhi decision, according to the learned coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the palaces of Rulers of Indian States which are declared by the Central Government as the official residence of such Rulers." It is, therefore, clear that under this order the income from all the palaces of a Ruler which are declared to be the official residence were exempt. Under sub-s. (19A) of s. 10, only one palace in occupation has been exempted and it appears that similarly in the W.T. Act instead of using the word " palace " they have used the words " one building in occupation of a Ruler " which has been exempted from tax. It is not in dispute that in this reference the property in question is a palace. It is also not in dispute that a portion of it is in occupation. The only question which has been raised by learned counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
