Dairy farming is not agricultural income, and "brothers only" may include descendants of brothers under the statute.
Income from milk derived from maintained cows was held not to be agricultural income, because dairy farming does not fall within agriculture for income-tax purposes; the amount was therefore assessable under the Act and the issue went in favour of the Revenue. The Schedule's expression "brothers only" was construed broadly, with "brother" taken in an inclusive sense to cover the sons and grandsons of brothers, including a brother's widow, without requiring a surviving original brother; on that construction, the family fell within the statutory category and this issue also went in favour of the Revenue.
Issues: (i) Whether income from milk derived from mulch cows maintained by the assessee was agricultural income liable to assessment under the Orissa Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1947. (ii) Whether the Hindu undivided family in question fell within the description of a Hindu undivided family consisting of "brothers only" under the Schedule to the Orissa Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1947.
Issue (i): Whether income from milk derived from mulch cows maintained by the assessee was agricultural income liable to assessment under the Orissa Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1947.
Analysis: The question was answered by applying the settled principle that agriculture, in the income-tax context, does not extend so far as to include dairy farming. Income derived from milk produced by maintained cows was therefore treated as distinct from agricultural income. The earlier binding decisions relied upon by the Court supported the conclusion that dairy farming is not within the statutory concept of agriculture for the purpose of the Act.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
Issue (ii): Whether the Hindu undivided family in question fell within the description of a Hindu undivided family consisting of "brothers only" under the Schedule to the Orissa Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1947.
Analysis: The Schedule was construed as using an inclusive definition of "brother" so as to extend the expression "brothers only" beyond living brothers themselves to the sons and grandsons of brothers, including the widow of a brother. The language was held not to require that one original brother must still be a surviving coparcener. On that construction, the family described in the reference came within the statutory category.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: Both referred questions were answered in the Revenue's favour, and the reference was disposed of with costs.
Ratio Decidendi: Dairy farming does not constitute agriculture for income-tax purposes, and an inclusive statutory definition of "brother" may extend a family described as "brothers only" to descendants of brothers without requiring a surviving original brother.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
