SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1960 Supreme(SC) 360

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
15th December, 1960
J.L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
The Travancore Rubber and Tea Co., Ltd. (In all the appeals), Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of Agricultural Income-Tax, Kerala (In All the Appeals), Respondent.
Civil Appeals Nos. 290 to 292 of 1959.
Advocates appeared
Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India (M/s. Thomas Vellapally and M .R. K. Pillai, Advocates with him), for Appellant (In all the Appeals); Mr. Sardar Bahadur, Advocate, for Respondent (In all the Appeals).

Advocates:
C.K.DAFTARY, M.R.Krishna Pillai, SARDAR BAHADUR SAHARYA, THOMAS VELLAPALLY

Expenditure incurred for the upkeep and maintenance of immature rubber trees is a permissible deduction under S. 5(j) of the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950.

Headnote:

AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX - Deduction - Expenditure for upkeep and maintenance of immature rubber trees - Whether permissible - Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950 (Act XXII of 1950), S. 5(j).

Fact of the Case:

The assessee, a rubber plantation company, claimed a deduction under S. 5(j) of the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950 for expenses incurred on the upkeep and maintenance of immature rubber trees. The Agricultural Income-tax Tribunal allowed the deduction, but the High Court held that the expenditure was not incurred "for the purpose of deriving the agricultural income" and hence was not deductible.

Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the expenditure was deductible under S. 5(j) of the Act. The Court held that the expression "agricultural income" in S. 5(j) should not be construed narrowly to mean only the income derived in the current year, but should be interpreted to include future income as well. The Court also held that the expenditure was incurred "wholly and exclusively" for the purpose of deriving agricultural income, as it was necessary for the maintenance and upkeep of the rubber trees, which would eventually yield income.

Issues: Whether the expenditure incurred for the maintenance and upkeep of immature rubber trees constitutes a permissible deduction within the meaning of S. 5(j) of the Act XXII of 1950?

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the expenditure was deductible under S. 5(j) of the Act. The Court held that the expression "agricultural income" in S. 5(j) should not be construed narrowly to mean only the income derived in the current year, but should be interpreted to include future income as well. The Court also held that the expenditure was incurred "wholly and exclusively" for the purpose of deriving agricultural income, as it was necessary for the maintenance and upkeep of the rubber trees, which would eventually yield income.

Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgments and orders of the High Court, and answered the questions in favor of the appellant in all the three agricultural Income-tax References.

Judgment

KAPUR, J. : These three appeals are brought by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Kerala and arise out of a common judgment of that court given in three Agricultural Income-tax References Nos. 15, 18 and 19 of 1955. In the first reference the question raised was:

"Whether under the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950, in calculating the assessable agricultural income of a rubber estate already planted and containing both mature yielding rubber trees and also immature rubber plants which have not come into bearing the annual expenses incurred for the upkeep and maintenance of such rubber plants, are not a permissible deduction, and if so, whether the sum of I. Rs. 42,660-4-1 expended by the assessee in the relevant accounting year 1952, under this head may be deducted.

and in the other two the question referred was:

"Whether the expenses incurred for the maintenance and upkeep of immature rubber trees constitute a permissible deduction within the meaning of S. 5(j) of the Act XXII of 1950? In all the references the questions were answered in the negative and against the appellant.

2. The appeals relate to three accounting years 1950, 1951 and 1952 (assessment years 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54). The appellants have rubber plantations and in the accounting year 1950, corresponding to the assessment year 1951-52, the appellants had under cultivation 3,558.84 acres out of which 334.64 acresd had immature rubber trees growing and the rest, i.e., 3,224.20 acres mature rubber yielding trees under cultivation. In that year a sum of Rs. 19056-0-9, which was expended for the upkeep & maintenance of immature portion of the rubber plantation, was allowed by the Agricultural Income-tax Tribunal and at the instance of the respondent a reference was made to the High Court under S. 60(1) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act (Act XXII of 1950) hereinafter termed the Act and that was reference No. 18 of 1955.

3. During the accounting year 1951 corresponding to the assessment year 1952-53 the appellant had under cultivation a total area of 3,426.55 acres of which 3,091.91 acres were mature yielding trees and 334.64 acres had immature rubber trees. In that year a sum of Rs. 59,271-9-5 was expenditure incurred for the upkeep and maintenance of immature portion of the rubber estate. That sum was allowed by the Agricultural Income-tax Tribunal and at the instance of the respondent a reference was made under S. 60(1) of the Act to the High Court and that was reference No. 19 of 1955.

4. In Agricultural Income-tax Reference No. 15 of 1955 which related to accounting year 1952 and the assessment year 1953-54, the area under cultivation was 3,453.65 out of which 2,967.91 acres had mature rubber yielding trees and 485.74 acres had immature rubber growing trees. In that year the amount expended on the maintenance and tending of the immature rubber trees was Rs. 42,660-4-1. In that case, however, the Agricultural Income-tax Tribunal rejected the appellant s claim and disallowed the expenditure. At the instance of the appellant a case was stated to the High Court under S. 60(1) of the Act and was answered in the negative and against the appellant. In all the cases the assessee company is the appellant and the main question for decision is whether the amount expended for the upkeep and maintenance of the immature rubber trees is a permissible deduction under S. 5(j) of the Act.

5. The charging Section under the Act is S. 3 and S. 5 relates to computation of agricultural income. It provides:-

S. 5 "The agricultural income of a person shall be computed after making the following deductions, namely:-

....... ..... ..... ...... ..... ..... ... ... .... ...

(j) any expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of deriving the agricultural income; .

In regard to this income the High Court held:

"We find it









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top