Following that decision, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions filed by Shri V. V. V. R. K. Yachendra Kumar Raja raising the very question that was the subject matter of the References.
1257, 1260, 1262, 1313, 1314 and 1374 of 1968 .
On a further appeal to the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal held that as those payments were made to the assessee as companypensation for destroying his income producing assets they should be companysidered as capital re ceipts and hence number liable to be taxed.
under S. 66 1 of the Act for the opinion of the High Court.
N. Sachthey, for the respondents in C.As.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated August 2, 1967 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Case Referred No.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated August 2, 1967 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeals Nos.
The assessee in those appeals is a Hindu Undivided Family and that family was the holder of the Estate of Devarkota and Challappalli.
35 of 1963 and Civil Appeals Nos.
Vedantha Chari, K. C. Rajappa and A. Subba Rao, for the appellant in C.As.
80,391 received by the assessee under section 50 of the Madras Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1948 was of a capital nature and number liable to tax.
1257, 1260, 1262, 1313, 1314 and 1374 Of 1968.
1257, 1260, 1262, 1313 and 1314 and 1374 of 1968 .
The assesses companytended that those receipts were number Revenue receipts and hence number taxable.
80,843 Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
1,21,146 and Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. The companymon question of law which arises for decision in these appeals by certificate, is whether the interim payment received by a former holder of an estate under S. 50 2 3 22 of the Madras Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act 1948 Madras Act 26 of 1948 to be hereinafter referred to as the Act whose Estate vested in the Government under s. 3 of the Act was of capital nature and number liable to tax.
Ram Reddy, T. A. Ramachandran and A. V. Nair, for the interveners.
Thereafter, at the instance of the Commissioner of income tax, the Tribunal referred the question Where onthe facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interim companypensation of Rs.
1309 to 1312 of 1968 .
He based his plea firstly on the ground that those receipts represented agricultural income or alternatively they were capital receipts and lastly on the ground that the income having been apportioned among the principal landholder and the other persons referred to in subs.
Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee repeated those companytentions but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected them and upheld the order of the Income tax Officer.
40,422, Rs.
The Income tax Officer sought to include those payments in the assessment of the assessee in those years.
During the assessment years 1953 54, 1954 55, 1956 57 and 1958 59, the assessee received some interim payments.
All these companytentions were rejected by the Income tax Officer.
1309 to 1312 of 1968.
Hence it would be sufficient if we set out the facts of Civil Appeals Nos.
Sen, P. L. luneja, R. N. Sachthey and B. D. Sharma, for the respondent in C.As.
1409 to 1312 of 1968 .
The material facts bearing on the point in issue are identical in all these appeals.
34 of 1966 etc.
2 of s. 50 of the Act, the entire amount did number fall to be assessed in his hands.
Vedantha Chari, K. C. Rajappa, K. Rajendra Chawdhary and Hari Singh, for the appellants in C.As.
1309 to 1312 of 1968 which were filed by the same assessee.
