Skip to content


S. A. Ramaraj Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, KeralA. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Referred Case No. 35 of 1967
Reported in[1969]71ITR108(Ker)
AppellantS. A. Ramaraj
RespondentCommissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, KeralA.
Cases ReferredMaharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh v. Commissioner of Income
Excerpt:
- - the position is also well settled by a number of decisions......justified in law in including the sum of rs, 3,600 as agricultural income in the assessment of the hindu undivided family represented by its karta, s. a. ramaraj ?'the assessee is a hindu undivided family and its income for the assessment year 1964-65 with which we are concerned in this case consists of income from its own lands and income received from registered firm of which the family was a partner. shri s. a. ramaraj, the karta of the family also received an income of rs. 3,600 as remuneration as managing partner of one of the said firms. it is not disputed that this sum of rs. 3,600 would be the income of the hindu undivided family. the only question is whether it is agricultural income or non-agricultural income. a reading of the definition of agricultural income in the act is.....
Judgment:

ISAAC J. - This is a reference made by the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 60(1) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, on application of the assessee. The question referred is :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in including the sum of Rs, 3,600 as agricultural income in the assessment of the Hindu undivided family represented by its karta, S. A. Ramaraj ?'

The assessee is a Hindu undivided family and its income for the assessment year 1964-65 with which we are concerned in this case consists of income from its own lands and income received from registered firm of which the family was a partner. Shri S. A. Ramaraj, the karta of the family also received an income of Rs. 3,600 as remuneration as managing partner of one of the said firms. It is not disputed that this sum of Rs. 3,600 would be the income of the Hindu undivided family. The only question is whether it is agricultural income or non-agricultural income. A reading of the definition of agricultural income in the Act is sufficient to say that remuneration received by a person of r managing agricultural property would not be agricultural income. The position is also well settled by a number of decisions. Reference may be made to the decision of the Patna High Court in E. C. Danby v. Commissioner of Income-tax the decision of the Privy Council in Premier Construction Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax and the decision of the Supreme Court in Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax

In the result, we answer the question referred to this court in the negative and in favour of the assessee. We make no order as to costs. A copy of this judgment will be forwarded to Appellate Tribunal as required by section 60(6) of the Act.


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