Skip to content


Maharaja Dharmendra Pratap NaraIn Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Reference No. 225 of 1972
Judge
Reported in(1985)48CTR(All)129; [1985]153ITR389(All)
ActsU.P. Agriculture Income Tax Act, 1948 - Sections 6A and 24
AppellantMaharaja Dharmendra Pratap NaraIn Singh
RespondentState of Uttar Pradesh
Advocates:Rajendra Kumar, Adv.
Excerpt:
- .....have been referred for the opinion of this court :'1. whether the sale of timber from the planted groves prior to the introduction of section 6a in the agricultural income-tax act was liable to be assessed as agricultural income under the act ? 2. if the answer to question no. 1 be in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount representing the sale proceeds of planted groves and trees was a capital receipt and as such not taxable under the agricultural income-tax act ? 3. whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of rs. 5,000 being the advance collection of rent was taxable in the assessment year in question or whether this should have been assessed for the year to which the rent related ?' 2. counsel for the.....
Judgment:

Anshuman Singh, J.

1. This is a reference under Section 24 of the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948. The following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court :

'1. Whether the sale of timber from the planted groves prior to the introduction of Section 6A in the Agricultural Income-tax Act was liable to be assessed as agricultural income under the Act ?

2. If the answer to question No. 1 be in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount representing the sale proceeds of planted groves and trees was a capital receipt and as such not taxable under the Agricultural Income-tax Act ?

3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 5,000 being the advance collection of rent was taxable in the assessment year in question or whether this should have been assessed for the year to which the rent related ?'

2. Counsel for the parties state that the questions involved in this case except question No. 3 have been answered by this court in A.I.T.R. No. 824 of. 1972--Maharaja Dharmendra Pratap Narain Singh v. State of U.P. : [1980]121ITR806(All) . Learned counsel further states that in view of the fact that questions Nos. 1 and 2 are to be answered in favour of the assessee, it is not necessary to answer question No. 3.

3. In view of the above statement, the first question is answered by saying that the assessee was not liable to tax for the sale of timber from the planted groves. So far as the second question is concerned, that is really academic, but as it refers to the sale proceeds of planted groves and trees, in order to avoid any confusion, it is necessary to answer it by saying that the sale proceeds of planted groves and trees were capital receipts and as such not liable to tax. The third question is not to be answered. The assessee is entitled to its costs, which is assessed at Rs. 200. Counsel fee is assessed at the same figure.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //