TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Wife's Land Added to Husband's Assets for Tax Liability</h1> <h3>AYS Parisutha Nadar Versus Commissioner Of Agricultural Income-Tax, Madras</h3> AYS Parisutha Nadar Versus Commissioner Of Agricultural Income-Tax, Madras - [1978] 111 ITR 441, 1977 CTR 69 Issues:1. Interpretation of section 9(2)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955.2. Application of section 65 of the Act in determining composition amount.3. Exclusion of section 34 in proceedings under section 65.Analysis:1. The court examined the interpretation of section 9(2)(a)(iii) of the Act, which includes the agricultural income of a wife arising from assets transferred by the husband. The petitioner argued against clubbing the wife's holding with the husband's for composition calculation. However, the court referred to a previous judgment emphasizing the application of the principle of section 9(2) to determine composition. The court held that the wife's land should be deemed as an addition to the husband's assets for fixing liability to pay agricultural income-tax.2. Regarding the application of section 65 of the Act, the court discussed the proviso to section 65(7), which allows for the application of section 9(2) in relation to the composition of agricultural income-tax. The court cited a previous case where it was established that the assets gifted to the wife should be considered in calculating the composition amount. The court rejected the petitioner's argument against clubbing the wife's holding with the husband's for composition purposes.3. The petitioner contended that section 34 was excluded in proceedings under section 65 due to the provisions of section 65(7). However, the court disagreed, stating that section 34(1) is broad in scope and encompasses orders passed by subordinate authorities. The court clarified that the exclusion in section 65(7) only pertained to specific provisions like submission of returns and assessment to agricultural income-tax, not to the applicability of section 34. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, upholding the Commissioner's order to redetermine the amount payable by the petitioner.In conclusion, the court's judgment affirmed the inclusion of the wife's land in the husband's assets for calculating the composition amount under section 65 of the Act. The court also clarified that section 34 was not excluded in proceedings under section 65, leading to the dismissal of the petitioner's claims.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
