https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186791 Chakla Roshanabad was treated as property of the Maharaja of Tripura in his official capacity as ruler, not his personal estate. On that basis, the income from the estate was held outside the charging ambit of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, which was construed as not extending to the income of an independent sovereign or ruling prince. The Act was therefore not ultra vires as it did not authorise such assessment, and Rule 22 of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Rules, 1939 was upheld as a valid procedural rule within the delegated rule-making power. The assessee was not liable to be assessed as agent of the Maharaja, and costs were awarded to the assessee. en-us Fri, 30 Jul 1948 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Sep 2016 16:50:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186791 Chakla Roshanabad was treated as property of the Maharaja of Tripura in his official capacity as ruler, not his personal estate. On that basis, the income from the estate was held outside the charging ambit of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, which was construed as not extending to the income of an independent sovereign or ruling prince. The Act was therefore not ultra vires as it did not authorise such assessment, and Rule 22 of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Rules, 1939 was upheld as a valid procedural rule within the delegated rule-making power. The assessee was not liable to be assessed as agent of the Maharaja, and costs were awarded to the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 30 Jul 1948 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186791