| Case ID |
67add251-d94c-41f2-9ae7-7824c69315d5 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Privy Council Appeal No. 26 of 1947 |
| Decision Date |
Jul 06, 1948 |
| Hearing Date |
May 11, 1948 |
| Decision |
The appeals raised the question of whether interest on arrears of rent for land used for agricultural purposes is exempt from income tax as agricultural income under the Income Tax Act, 1922. The court concluded that such interest is not classified as rent, and hence not exempt. It was determined that interest on arrears of rent is not derived from land but rather stems from the obligation to pay rent, which is a debt. Therefore, the court ruled that interest on arrears of rent is taxable income, and the previous judgments that held otherwise were overruled. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the interpretation of the Income Tax Act, 1922, specifically concerning the taxability of interest on arrears of rent related to agricultural land. The Privy Council evaluated whether such interest could be classified as agricultural income exempt from income tax. The ruling clarified that while rent is derived from land, interest on rent arrears is not. It emphasized that this interest is a separate financial obligation and should be treated as taxable income. The decision overruled previous judgments that suggested otherwise, establishing a precedent in tax law regarding agricultural income. This case serves as a critical reference for tax professionals and legal practitioners dealing with income tax issues related to agricultural land. The legal interpretations made in this case are significant for understanding the nuances of income tax liability and agricultural income definitions, making it a vital resource for lawyers, advocates, and tax authorities. |
| Court |
Privy Council
|
| Entities Involved |
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIHAR AND ORISSA
|
| Judges |
LORDS UTHWATT,
MORTON OF HENRYTON,
MACDERMOTT,
SIR MADHAVAN NAIR,
SIR JOHN BEAUMONT
|
| Lawyers |
Millard Tucker K. C.,
Handoo,
Pritt K. C.,
Sir Roland Burrows K. C.,
Colombos,
Prem Lall
|
| Petitioners |
Millard Tucker K. C.,
Handoo
|
| Respondents |
Pritt K. C.,
Sir Roland Burrows K. C.,
Colombos,
Prem Lall
|
| Citations |
1960 SLD 98,
1960 PTD 976
|
| Other Citations |
Sarju Bai v. Commissioner of Income tax (1947) 15 I T R 137,
Maharajdhiraja Kumari Srimati Lakshmi Daiji v. Commissioner of Income tax, (1944) 12 I T R 309,
In re Manager, Radhika Mohan Roy Wards Estate, A I R 1941 Cal. 443,
Pethaperumal Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income tax I L R (1944) Mad. 322
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Act, 1922
|
| Sections |
2(1),
4(3)
|