Case Details

Citation(s)
2000 SLG 225 2000 SLD 225 = 2000 PTD 587 (1998) 232 ITR 281
Madras High Court
Tax Case No.1897 of 1984 (Reference No.1380 of 1984),decision dated: 21st February, 1997.
ABDUL HADI AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JJ
Uttam Reddy for the Assessee. S.V. Subramanian for the Commissioner.

M. RAMALAKSHMI REDDIvsCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax

Law: Income Tax Act, 1961

Section: 10

(a) Income-tax-----Other sources---Property---Income from property or from others sources--Meaning of "appurtenant" to building---Sale of water from well- --Subsequent construction of building in adjacent land---Well was not appurtenant to building---Income from sale of water was assessable as income from other sources---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.22 & 56.(b) Income-tax-------Causal and non-recurring receipt---Sale of water---Water supplied in accounting year relevant to assessment year 1970-71 as a friendly gesture and money obtained for it held to be a casual and non-recurring receipt---Finding that there had been a sale of water in accounting year relevant to assessment year 1975-76---Income derived from sale of water was not a casual and non-recurring receipt in assessment year 1975-76---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 10(3).(c) Words and phrases-------" Appurtenant" ---Meaning.What is necessary for the enjoyment of the building is alone covered by the expression "appurtenance". The touchstone of "appurtenance" is dependence of the building on what appertains to it for its use as a building. What is integral is not necessarily appurtenant. A position of subordination, something incidental or ancillary or dependent is implied in appurtenance.The assessee had a well in-the compound of her dwelling house at Madras, with a perennial spring which provided a copious supply of water. During the drought of 1974, she allowed S and a hotel T to draw water from that well and received Rs.52,690 from them therefore. Her net realisation was Rs.46,731 after meeting the expenses of electricity, repairs to motor, salary to watchman and well-deepening charges from time to time. The assessee claimed the. said amount of Rs.46,731 to be not taxable under the Act. The Income-tax Officer, however, included the same in her total income. The appeal by the assessee was dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In the said appellate order, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner referred to the earlier order of the Tribunal in relation to the same assessee in respect of the earlier assessment year 1970-71. During the previous year in relation to that assessment year…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register