Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether co-owners of agricultural land holding the property as tenants-in-common were liable to be assessed as an association of persons, or whether the income had to be assessed separately in accordance with their respective shares under the agricultural income-tax law.
Analysis: Section 3(1) fastens the charge of agricultural income-tax on every person, while section 3(3) specifically provides that in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. On the facts, the estate was held in defined shares, namely 9/10ths and 1/10th, and there was no division by metes and bounds. Such holding did not convert the co-owners into an association of persons merely because the property was undivided or jointly managed. The revisional order proceeded on an erroneous assumption that the Act contained no provision for tenants-in-common, whereas the statutory text expressly covered that situation.
Conclusion: The co-owners were required to be assessed as tenants-in-common, not as an association of persons, and the revisional order could not be sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Where agricultural property is held by co-owners as tenants-in-common with definite shares, section 3(3) mandates separate assessment of each tenant-in-common and joint management of the undivided property does not by itself create an association of persons.