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

TMI Blog

Home

1978 (2) TMI 43

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Karnataka Agrl. I.T. Act, 1957, ignoring s. 10(2)(a) of that Act ?" s. 3(3) of the Karnataka Agrl. I.T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), will have no application to a case where a person holds agricultural lands as a trustee and receives the agricultural income partly for his own benefit and partly for the benefit of others. s. 3(3) of the Act applies only if the person holds property as tenants-in-common and derives agricultural income. If a person holds agricultural lands as a trustee and receives agricultural income partly for his own benefit and partly for the benefit of others, it is impossible to say that the property is held as tenants-in-common. The only other question that requires examination is as to whet .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it." It is clear from the language of s. 10(2)(a) of the Act that the question of application of the said provision arises only if the case does not fall under s. 10(1)(a) of the Act. If the case falls under s. 10(1)(a), it will not be necessary to examine as to whether s. 10(2)(a) applies. The essential question for consideration is as to whether s. 10(1)(a) applies to the case of a person holding agricultural lands as a trustee and receiving agricultural income partly for his own benefit and partly for the benefit of others. The Division Bench which made the reference has proceeded on the assumption that the rule laid down by this court in R. T. N. Punja v. CIT [1966] 2 Karnataka Law journal 275 [reported as B. T. R. Punja v. Commr. of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to the context in which the expression "is entitled to receive on behalf of any person" is used, it has to be understood as meaning "entitled to receive for the benefit of any person". If the expression is not so understood, s. 10(1)(a) of the Act, so far as trustees are concerned, cannot be given effect to and the provision to that extent becomes otiose. This court had occasion to construe s. 41 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, in G. T. Rajamannar v. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 339 (Mys). Though in s. 41(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, similar expression has been used, viz., "on behalf of" as is used in s. 10(1)(a) of the Act, their Lordships construed those words as meaning "for the benefit of", as, otherwise, s. 41(1) of the Indian I.T. Act which re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eceives the said income in his capacity as a trustee. Besides, under the definition of the word "person" occurring in s. 2(1)(p) of the Act, "person" means a person among others who holds property partly for his own benefit and partly for another. Therefore, a person who holds agricultural lands as trustee and receives agricultural income partly for his own benefit and partly for the benefit of others, can be assessed under s. 10(1)(a) of the Act and the question of invoking s. 10(2)(a) does not arise. The case dealt with by this court in Punja's case [1967] 63 ITR 442 (Mys) was governed by s. 3(3) of the Act. But their Lordships also proceeded to examine as to whether the case also falls under s. 10(1)(a) of the Act, and came to the conc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rustees as well as others. As their Lordships came to the conclusion that the document created a trust and as s. 13 of the Assam Agrl. I.T. Act did not deal with the trustees that section was held not applicable. As s. 13 of the Assam Agrl. I.T. Act did not apply to the facts of that case, their Lordships proceeded to hold that s. 12(1) of the Assam Agrl. I.T. Act was attracted. But, s. 10(1)(a) of the Act, with which we are concerned, covers the case of trustees. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that the decision of this court rendered in Punja's case [1967] 63 ITR 442 (Mys) is inconsistent with the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in Handique's case [1966] 60 ITR 216. For the reasons stated above, we answer the reference as foll .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates