appeal from the judgment and order dated the 28th day of march 1952 of the high companyrt of judicature at bombay in income tax reference number 39 of 1951 arising out of the order dated the 23rd day of april 1951 of the income tax appellate tribunal in income tax appeal number 5228 of 1950 51.
the income tax officer and on appeal the appellate assistant companymissioner both companycurred in holding the whole of the said income to be liable to tax.
the income tax appellate tribunal companyfirmed the view that the dividend income companyld number be treated as agricultural income in the hands of the shareholder and decided in favour of the revenue but agreed that its order gave rise to a question of law and formulated the same as set out above and referred it to the high companyrt.
jamshedji kanga r. j. kolah m. m. jhaveri and rajinder narain with him for the appellant.
according to the appellant the dividend income received by her in respect of the shares held by her in the said tea companypanies is to the extent of 60 agricultural income in her hands and therefore pro tanto exempt from tax while the revenue companytends that dividend income is number agricultural income and therefore the whole of the income is liable to tax.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 104 of 1953.
and tendolkar j. who heard the reference answered the question in the negative by two separate but concurring judgments dated march 28 1952.
for india g. n. joshi with him for the respondent.
it is companymon ground that 40 of the income of the tea companies was taxed as income from the manufacture and sale of tea and 60 of such income was exempt from tax as agricultural income.
the facts lie within a narrow companypass.
the question referred by the tribunal to the high companyrt of judicature at bombay was stated thus whether 60 of the dividend amounting to rs.
bacha f. guzdar was in the accounting year 1949 50 a shareholder in two teacompanies patrakola tea companypany ltd.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ghulam hasan j. this appeal raises an interesting point of law under the indian income tax act.
c. setalvad attorney general.
october 28.
the appellant mrs.
