Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1924)ILR51Cal504
Rankin, J.1. This is a Reference made by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Assam, under Section 66 Sub-section (2) of the Indian Income Tax Act (XI of 1922) for the opinion of the Court. The question for determination is stated thus:Whether the following classes of income derived from permanently settled estates are liable to income.(2) income from fisheries.(2) Income from land used for stacking timber.(3) Income from pasturage.2. The question as regards income from pasturage is not now in dispute, and I agree with the Commissioner and the learned Vakil who appears for the Crown in thinking it to be reasonably plain that income from pasturage is 'derived from land which is used for agricultural purposes', and is, therefore, in the case of a permanently settled estate, within the exemption given by Section 4 Sub-section (3) Clause (viii) of the Act to 'agricultural income' as defined by Section 2 Sub-section (1) Clause (a). In the circumstance that such income is derived from fees realis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1927Cal432
C.C. Ghose, J.1. On the 12th March 1926 the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Assam, referred to this Court for decision under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-Tax Act of 1922, the following questions:I Whether the following sources of income are agricultural and therefore exempted from assessment to income-tax under Section 4(3)(viii) of the Act.(i) Jalkar or rents received from fisheries.(ii) Ground-rent from land used for potteries.(iii) Ground rent from land used as brick-fields.(iv) Fees received from the tying up of boats against the assessee's land.(v) Fees received from land used for storing purchase of crops (paiali).(vi) Fees received from cart stands.(vii) Punyaha nazar or nazar paid by fcdnant3 of agricultural holdings at the beginning of the zemindari year.(viii) Nazar for petitions presented to the zemindar dealing with questions of succession, settlement and partition.(ix) Ground-rent for permanent shops at hats and bazar3.(x) Stall fees paid by temporary (daily) sellers at ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee - 288 U.S. 517 (1933) U.S. Supreme Court Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee, 288 U.S. 517 (1933) Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee No. 301 Argued January 12, 13, 1933 Decided March 13, 1933 288 U.S. 517 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Syllabus 1. A state tax (Florida Laws 1931, c. 15624) on the privilege of opening and maintaining stores fixed at so much per store without regard to value or volume of business, and increasing progressively with the number of stores maintained by the owners taxed, is not in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because of the resulting discrimination against them and in favor of owners of single and department stores or the owners of distinct stores in voluntary cooperation. State Board of Tax Comm'rs v. Jackson, 283 U. S. 527 . P. 288 U. S. 532 . 2. A state statutory provision laying a heavier privilege tax per store on the owner whose stores are in different counties than on the ow...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Schneiderman v. United States - 320 U.S. 118 (1943) U.S. Supreme Court Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118 (1943) Schneiderman v. United States No. 2 Argued November 9, 1942 Reargued March 12, 1943 Decided June 21, 1943 320 U.S. 118 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. Assuming that, in the absence of fraud, a certificate of citizenship can be set aside under 15 of the Naturalization Act of 1906 as "illegally procured" because the finding by the naturalization court that the applicant was attached to the principles of the Constitution was erroneous, the burden is upon the Government to prove the error by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence; a mere preponderance of evidence which leaves the issue in doubt will not suffice. P. 320 U. S. 124 . 2. In construing the Acts of Congress governing naturalization and denaturalization, general expressions should not be so construed as to circumscribe liberty of political though...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Fay v. New York - 332 U.S. 261 (1947) U.S. Supreme Court Fay v. New York, 332 U.S. 261 (1947) Fay v. New York No. 377 Argued April 3, 1947 Decided June 23, 1947 * 332 U.S. 261 CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK Syllabus 1. New York Judiciary Law 749-aa, 29 McKinney's L. N.Y. pp. 511-515, providing for the administrative selection of a special or "blue ribbon" jury panel from the general jury panel in counties of one million or more inhabitants and the use in certain classes of cases of juries drawn from this special panel, does not, on its face, deny defendants in criminal cases due process of law or equal protection of the laws contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 332 U. S. 270 -272. (a) This Court cannot find it constitutionally forbidden to set up in a metropolis with congested court calendars administrative procedures in advance of trial to eliminate from the jury panel those who, in a large proportion of cases, would be rejected by the court after ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Viscount Simon MY LORDS, In this very important and most difficult case, going as it does to the foundations of the conception of one kind of charitable trust, I have read and re-read the opinion which has been prepared by my noble and learned friend Lord Simonds. Notwithstanding views to a different effect which are to be found in the minority judgment of the Master of the Rolls in the Court of Appeal, and in another opinion about to be pronounced in this House, I cannot escape from the course of argument contained in Lord Simonds' opinion, or from the conclusion at which he arrives. I therefore move that this appeal be dismissed with costs. Lord Wright MY LORDS, The issue in this case is whether the Appellant Society is entitled to exemption from Income Tax under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1918, on the ground that it is a body established for charitable purposes only. The year of charge is the year ending the 5th April, 1943, and the subject is the Appellant's invested income ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori67
Ray, C.J.1. The four cases, mentioned above, arising out of as many petitions, were some of the pending cases in respect of which the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court ceased from the 26th July, under Orissa High Court Constitution Order. They have since been transferred to this Court, and heard analogously, as the points for decision are common to all and will be governed by this order.2. Criminal Misc. 2/48 has been filed by one Saradhakar Naik of Bamra State, seeking interference of this Court, in the matter of illegal arrest and detention of one Jaydev Thakur of Bamra State and to order him to be set at liberty.3. Similarly, Cr Misc. nOS. 3, 4 and 5 of 1948 arise out of petitions filed, respectively, by Jayadev Naik of Bamra, Rual Naik and Pravakar Das of Kalahandi, in relation to the arrests and detentions of Batnakar Patra of Bamra, Nilakanth Patnaik and Lingaraj Daa of Kalahandi. In all the petitions, the legality of arrests and detentions of the prisoners has been challenged...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1951All257
Malik, C.J.1. These applications have been filed on behalf of certain persons who own motor buses and carry passengers for hire on various routes in Uttar Pradesh. The applicants want appropriate relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The applications can be grouped according to the routes over which the transport buses of the various bus-owners or transport companies were running.2. Civil Misc. Cases Nos. 4 to 7, 71 to 98 and 133 to 140 of 1950 relate to the route Khurja-Bulandshahr-Delhi. The applicants in these cases are represented by Mr. Gopal Swarup Pathak. Civil Misc. Cases Nos. 8 to 70 of 1950 relate to Meerut-Delhi route and the applicants in these cases are also represented by Mr. Pathak.3. Civil Misc. Cases Nos. 99, 100, 104 to 116 of 1950 relate to Garhmukteshwar-Hapur-Delhi route and the applicants in these cases are represented by Shri Alladi Krishnaswami and Mr. S.B. L. Gour.4. Civil Misc. Cases Nos. 118, 119 and 120 of 1950 relate to buses running on the Mathura ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1952Mad395; (1952)1MLJ208
1.This is an application made under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is a Law Graduate of the Madras University. According to the statements made in his affidavit in support of the application, he has completed the prescribed term of apprenticeship and passed the Bar Council examinations in Practice and Procedure and has complied with all the requirements prescribed under the rules framed by the Madras Bar Council under the Indian Bar Councils Act. He is an applicant to be admitted to the rolls of this High Court as an advocate thereof. His complaint and the relief which he seeks from this Court are thus set out in the following paragraphs in his affidavit:"3. I am a citizen of India. Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India secures to mo the right to practise any profession. I am desirous of practising the profession of law, and with that view, I have applied to be enrolled as an Advocate of this Honourable Court.4. Under Section 8 of the Act 1 will not be deemed t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1953Raj22
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application by Rao Sahib Manohar Singhji, Jagirdar of Bedla under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the State of Rajasthan for the issue of writ of mandamus or such further and other writ direction or order as may seem fit and proper.2. The case of the applicant is that he is the owner of the Jagir of Bedla which is situate in the former State of Mewar, now included in the State of Rajasthan. The former State of Mewar was integrated in 1948 to form what was known as the former United State of Rajasthan. There was a further integration in April and May 1949 by which the former United State of Rajasthan was amalgamated with the former State of Bikaner, Jaipur, Jaisalmer, and Jodhpur and the former Union of Matsya to form the present United State of Rajasthan. The former State of Rajasthan passed three Ordinances; No. XXVII of 1948, No. X and No. XV of 1949 in connection with the Jagirs there. By virtue of the powers under these Ordinances, the f...
Tag this Judgment!