Case Details

Citation(s)
1992 SLG 560 1992 SLD 560 (1992) 195 ITR 588
Kerala High Court
AGRL. IT REFERENCE CASE No. 3 OF 1984, MARCH 6, 1992
M. JAGANNADHA RAO, C.J., AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN AND P. KRISHNAMOORTHY, JJ.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Commissioner of Agricultural IncomE tax

v.

Panni Kunhappa

Law:

Section:

Section 10 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 - Exemption from tax - Assessment year 1975-76 - Whether two provisos of section 10(1) apply only to clause (e) (and not to other clauses of section 10(1)) - Held, yes FACTS For the assessment year 1975-76, the Agrl. ITO determined the total agricultural income of the assessee. Thereafter he gave an exemption of one-sixth of the income for the share income from the firm already assessed. The assessee contended that the limitation of exemption specified in the first proviso to section 10(1) is applicable only to clause (e) and would not cover other clauses in section 10(1). On appeal, the Tribunal held that the proviso to clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 10 will apply to the limiting of exemption referred to in that clause alone. On reference: HELD Section 10(1)(e) alone deals with the entitlement to exemption in respect of sums paid by a person to effect an insurance on the life of such person or on the life of a wife or husband of such person. The provisos, read together, are very much concerned only with regard to the exemption in the case of life insurance dealt with by the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It is that specie of exemption which is provided by section 10(1)(e); and a fetter is placed by the proviso on the exemption available on that score by reference to the similar exemption provided in section 15 of the Indian Income-tax Act. In other words, the scope and the subject dealt with in the provisos will come only under section 10(1)(e) and other clauses of section 10(1) , clauses (e), (c), (d) or (f) have no nexus or connection with the subject dealt with in the two provisos. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisos to section 10(1) would, apply only to clause (e) thereof. T. Karunakaran Nambiar for the Applicant. JUDGMENT Paripoornan, J. - At the instance of the revenue, the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode, has referred the following question of law for the decision of this Court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the provisos coming under clause…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492