RAJA RAMESWARA RAO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, HYDERABAD

CIVIL APPEAL No. 420/1962Supreme Court[1964] 2 S.C.R. 84704 April 1963Bench: 4 JudgesAuthor: S.K. DAS, A.K. SARKAR, K.N. WANCHOO, K.C. DAS GUPTA S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS12 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the interim maintenance allowances paid under the Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation, 1358F, in respect of a period prior to April 1, 1950, were revenue receipts and thus taxable as income. The Court distinguished these allowances from the commutation sum, which was admittedly a capital receipt. The reasoning was that the allowances were provided for by a specific statute and were intended to be distinct from the final commutation. The Court approved observations from Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Butterley & Co. Ltd., stating that such interim allowances are 'sui generis' and arise from the statute itself, not from a source of income in the traditional sense. The Court also noted that payments made subsequent to April 1, 1950, towards the commutation amount were not income and not liable to tax. An inquiry was directed to determine the nature of three specific payments made after April 1, 1950. The High Court's decision was affirmed.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Raja Rameswara Rao, was the proprietor of the Wanaparthy Jagir. He received payments described as interim maintenance allowances under the Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation, 1358F. The Revenue brought these payments to tax as income. The appellant contended they were capital in nature. A case was stated to the Andhra Pradesh High Court on whether these allowances were income and thus taxable. The High Court ruled against the appellant, leading to this appeal before the Supreme Court. The dispute centers on the nature of these payments – whether they constitute capital or income, as determined by the Abolition Regulation and the supplementary Hyderabad Jagirs (Commutation) Regulation, 1359F.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the interim maintenance allowances received by the assessee under the Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation, 1358F, are income and therefore liable to tax. Assessee's contention: The appellant argued that the interim maintenance allowances were capital in nature and not liable to tax. He contended that he was divested of the Jagir as from the 'appointed day' (September 15, 1949), and any payments received thereafter should be considered as compensation for this deprivation, thus being capital receipts. Revenue's contention: The Revenue contended that these allowances were revenue receipts and taxable as income. They relied on the distinction drawn between interim maintenance allowances and the commutation sum in the relevant regulations.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14,Section 3,Section 6,Section 7(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 847 RAJ A RAMESW ARA RAO v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, HYDERABAD (S. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR, K. N. WANCHOO and K. C. DAS GUPTA JJ.)

Income Tax-Interim maintenanoe allowances and com- mutation Bum-Distinctinn-lnterim maintenance allowances, whether income or capital-flyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs)

Regulation, 1358F-Hyderabad Jagirs (Commutation) Regula- tion, J359F-Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922). · The Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation, l 358F, which abolished Jagirs, provided by s. 14 that the amount payable to the J agirdars under the Regulation "shall he deemed to be interim maintenance allowances payable until such time as the terms of the commutation for thejagirs are deter- mined." The Hyderabad .Jagirs (Commutation) Regulation, 1359F, bys. 3 laid down that commutation sum for a .Jagir would be a certain multiple of its basic annual revenue and by s. 6, tlut the commutation sum for each Jagir would be distribut1ble between the Jagirdar and Hissedars in certain proportions.

Sub-section (2) of s. 7 of the latter Regulation stated that "payment to a Jagirdar ...... of. ..... the commu- tation sum of theJa~ir sha

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 14

All 685 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →