Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameshwar Singh v. CIT

32 ITR 587Supreme Court of India1957#24458 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2019.

Judgments citing Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameshwar Singh v. CIT

The ACIT, Kottayam vs. Kerala Forest Development Corporation Ltd, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 441/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)

…come if it partook the nature of the income. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate in facts and circumstances of the case that the basic issue involved in the relied judgment of Apex court in the case of Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameswar Singh reported in (1957) 32 ITR 587 (SC), the AO rejected the amount received in respects of forest trees of spontaneous growth were not taxable as they were either capital receipts or agricultural income. The judgment obviously pronounced in favour of revenue and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. However, from the order, it can neither be capital nor agricultural income. Hence…

The ACIT, Kottayam vs. Kerala Forest Development Corporation Ltd, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 440/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)

…come if it partook the nature of the income. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate in facts and circumstances of the case that the basic issue involved in the relied judgment of Apex court in the case of Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameswar Singh reported in (1957) 32 ITR 587 (SC), the AO rejected the amount received in respects of forest trees of spontaneous growth were not taxable as they were either capital receipts or agricultural income. The judgment obviously pronounced in favour of revenue and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. However, from the order, it can neither be capital nor agricultural income. Hence…

Vikas Globalone Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 26(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2498/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Piyush KamalFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 115JSection 37Section 80I

…ontaneous growth. The assessee failed to discharge onus upon it to prove that it is agricultural income. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Jyotikona Chowdhurani 32 ITR 705 (SC), Kameshwar Singh vs. CIT 32 ITR 587 (SC) and CIT vs. Ramakrishna Deo 32 ITR 312 (SC). The Ld. CIT(A), 22 ITA.No.2498/Del./2018 M/s. Vikas Globalone Ltd., (Now known as M/s. Vikas Ecotech Ltd.,) New Delhi. therefore, held that the amount in question received is not agricultural income but is taxable income. The income to that extent was accordingly enhanced rejecting the objection o…

Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameshwar Singh v. CIT (32 ITR 587) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax