TMI Blog1978 (10) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 60(1) of the Agrl. I.T. Act, 1950. The assessment years are 1968-69 to 1970-71. The assessee was assessed as a tenant-in-common in respect of an estate owned by three persons, namely, (1) Miss A.D. Baker, (2) Mr. R.G.A. Baker and (3) Mrs. R.V. Broad, the first owning a 4/8ths share, the second 3/8ths, and the 3rd, 1/8th. The assessee is Mr. R. G. A. Baker. In the course of the assessment proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al by the assessee, the AAC rejected the claim stating only that the question has already been dealt with by the assessing authority and there was no reason to interfere in respect of the deduction disallowed. When the matter went up to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal noticed the relevant facts in the light of which the claim had to be examined and decided. The amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o a statutory obligation on the part of the management to pay either of the two retirement benefits. So that, the question had been squarely posed for consideration by the assessee. The reasoning of the Appellate Tribunal is contained in para. 6(4) that all claims of deduction allowable under s. 10(2)(xv) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, are not allowable deductions under s. 5 of the Agrl. I.T. Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur Rubber Co. Ltd.'s case [1969] 71 ITR 686 (Ker), where it was pointed out that despite the different language of the relevant sections, the position under s. 5(j) of the Agl. I.T. Act is the same as that disclosed by s. 10(2)(xv) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. In view of this position, the view taken by the Tribunal that all deductions allowable under the I.T. Act are not allowable under s. 5(j) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
