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

1968 Supreme(Ker) 169

M.U.ISAAC, P.NARAYANA PILLAI
VISHNUDATHA ANTHARJANAM – Appellant
Versus
CAIT – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. The following two questions have been referred for the decision of this court by the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under S.60 (1) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 on the application of the assessee:

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the receipt from the sale of teak trees for the purpose of planting the area with rubber is capital in nature and exempt from Agrl. Income-tax Act.

2. If the answer to the above question is in the negative, whether the expenses incurred in the prior years for the purpose of obtaining the said agrl. income is allowable as a deduction from the proceeds of the trees.

2. The relevant assessment years are 1963-64 and 1964-65; and the corresponding previous years are 1137 M. E. and 1138 M. E. The assessee planted teak in 1122 ME. for the purpose of deriving income by sale of trees. In 1137 ME., the teak trees were sold for a sum of Rs. 76,500/-out of which she received Rs. 43,250/-in the same year, and the balance was received in the year 1138 M.E. The assessee's total agricultural income for the year 1963-64 was determined at Rs. 62,021/-including the sum of Rs. 43,250/-received by sale of t






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top