AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 83 words
1.
It seems to us clear with reference to the definitions in Section 3 of Madras Act IV of 1938 that a firm of money-lenders cannot be an
agriculturist. If the application be treated as one by the individual member of the firm it must fail, for the individual member has been assessed to
Income Tax during the period specified in proviso C to Section 3(3), so that he cannot claim to be an agriculturist.
2.
The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs.