LexBACHA F. GUZDAR versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1954 Kun.jilal and Another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh. Ghulam Hasan]. 1954 October 28. 876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] to the contention raised on behalf of the appellants. That sub-section reads : "403 (2) .-A person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him on the former trial under section 235, sub- section (I)." The appellants were not tried again for the same offence as contemplated under section 403(1) but for a distinct offence as contemplated by sub-section (2). It is true that in order to sustain the charge under sections 332 and 392, Indian Penal Code, the Court had to consider whether the seizure was legal and was made by a public servant in the discharge of his duty but once that was found against the appellants the further question to be determined was as to whether they committed the offence of robbing the Head Constable of the goods lawfully seized and whether they voluntarily caused hurt to him while he was acting in the discharge of his duties as a public servant. Upon both these points the finding of the Courts below is concurrent. We hold that there is no substance in this contention. We accordingly dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed. BACHA F. GUZDAR v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY. [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., S. R. D~s, GHULAM HASAN, BHAGWATI and VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.J Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), ss. 2(1), 4(3) (viii), 59 and rule 24-Agricultural Income, Meaning of-Growing and manu· facturing tea company's dividend, Nature of-Dividend how arises ·-Distinction bettveen shareholder and partner-Difference between company and firm-Decided cases on English Tax Uw, Use of. Agricultural income as defined ins. 2(1) of the Indian Income- tax Act, 1922, signifies income proximately derived from direct association with land by a ·person who actually tills the · land 01 - - - ... • S.C:.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 877 r gets it cultivated by others. Agricultural income income which can be ultimately or indirectly connection with agricultural operations. does not mean traced to have Even though a tea company growing and manufacturing tea gets an exemption of 60 per cent. of the profits as agricultural income in accordance with rule 24 framed under s. 59 of the Act, it must be held that the dividend of such company is not derived ; I by the shareholder owing to his direct connection with the land in which tea is grown and such dividend is not agricultural income within the meaning of s. 2 (1) of the Act and hence is not exempted from income-tax under s. 4(3) (viii) of the Act. .. • The dividend of a shareholder is the outcome of his right to participate in the profits of the company arising out of the con- tractual relation between the company and the shareholder and this right exists independently of any declaration of the dividend though until such declaration the enjoyment of the profits is post- poned. The shareholder by purchase of the share does not acquire any interest in the assets of the company till after the company is wound up. The position of a shareholder of a company is al- together different from that of a partner of a firm. A company is a juristic entity distinct from the shareholders but the firm is a collective name or an alias for all the partners. Decisions based on the peculiarities of Income-tax law of England are hardly safe guides for determining the true meaning of the term "agricultural income" under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Chiranjit Lal ChowdhU1·i v. The Union of India [1950] S.C.R. 869) followed. Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Forest (1924) 8 T.C. 704, Borland's Trustee v. Steel Bmthers & Co. Ltd. L.R. [1901] 1 Ch. 279, Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa v. Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narayan Singh and Others [1948] 16 I.T.R. 325, Premier Construction Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, .Bombay City [1948] 16 I.T.R. 380 and Maharajkumar Gopal Saran Narain Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa [1935] 3 I. T.R. 237 referred to . CrvrL APPELLATE No. 104 of 1953. JuRrsorcnoN : Civil Appeal Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated the 28th day of March, 1952, of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Income-tax Reference No. 39 of 1951 arising out of the Order dated the 23rd day o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.