THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX versus THE CALVARY MOUNT ESTATES (PRIVATE)

Citation: [1961] 3 S.C.R. 285 · Decided: 15-12-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.L. KAPUR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
285
THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL
INCOME-TAX
v.
THE CALVARY MOUNT ESTATES (PRIVATE)
LTD.
(J. L. KAPUR, M. liIDAYATULLAH and
J. c. SHAH, JJ.)
Agricultural Income Tax'-Rubber Plantation-Expenditure
on immature trees-Whether permissible deduction-Madras Plan-
tations Agricultural Income-tax Act, I955 (Mad. V of I955l.
s. 5(e).
The assessee owned an Estate of 590 acres out of which 235
acres were occupied by immature non-bearing rubber trees, for
the maintenance and upkeep of which the respondent claimed
expenses from out of the income, which was allowed both by
the Agricultural Income Tax Tribunal and the High Court. The
appellant came up by special leave.
Held, that the provisions of s. 5(e) of the Madras Planta-
tions Agricultural· Income Tax Act,· 1955 (Mad. V of 1955).
applicable to the present case, and those of s. 5(j) of the Travan-
core-Cochin Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950 (Tr. Co. XXII of
1950) being the same, the judgment in Travancore Rubber & Tea
Co. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Kerala,
in which the question of deductibility of sums expended for pur-
poses of forking, manuring etc. of immature rubber trees had
been decided, will govern this case.
Travancore Rubber©- Tea Co. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of
Agricultural Income-tax, Kerala, [1961] 3 S.C.R. 279, applied.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
145 of 1960.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated March 18, 1958, of the Kerala High Court
in Tax Revision Case No. 12 of 1957.
V. A. Seyid Mu1ia·mad and Sardar Bahadur, for the
appellant.
O. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, Thomat1
Vellapally, 8. N. Andley, J.B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar
Nath and P. L. Vokra, for the respondent.
1960. December 15. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
December 15.
286
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961]
196°
KAPUR, J.-This is an appeal by' special leave
-. .
against the judgment and order of the High Court of
The Commossrnna }T
J ' T
R
' '
N
12 f 1957
.r A
. It
1
>cera a m
ax ev1s10n
o.
o
,
o1
gricu ur:1
d
,
Income-tax
The respon ent who IS the assessee owned an estate
v.
of 590 acres in South M11labar district, now in Kerah
nc Calvary
Sta.te. Out of that area 85 acres were covered by Pep-
~fount Estate> per, Arecanut, Paddy and Coconut cultivation while
(Prfratc) Ltd.
the rest i.e. 505 acres had rubber plantations upon it.
Kapur J.
Of that area 235 acres were occupied by immature
non-bearing rubber trees and 270 acres had m11ture
rubber trees. The assessment relates to the year
1955-56, the accounting year being the year ending
March 31, 1955. The respondent claimed from out of
the income expenses relating to the m11intenance and
upkeep of immature non.bearing rubber trees. The
Agricultural Income tax Tribunal held that the
expenses incurred on the whole area under rubber
plant11tions were deductible expenses and remanded
the case for ascertaining the expenses incurred in fork-
ing and manuring of the "non-bearing and immature"
rubber grown areas also. The appellant then prefer-
red a revision application to the High Court under
s. 54(1) of the Madras Plantn,tions Agricultural Income
Tax Act, 1955 (Mad, V of 1955), The High Court held
that the amount spent on the upkeep and maintenance
of immature rubber trees was a deductible expenditure
under s. 5(e) of that Act which provides:
S, 5 "Computation of agricultural income: The
agricultural income of a person shall be computed
after making the following deductions, namely:-
}
•••••'""'''''''''''''•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••"•••••••••••••••••
I
(e) any expenditure incurred in the previous year
J
(not being in the nature of capital expenditure or
personal expenses of the assessee) laid out or expend-
ed wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the
plantation;",
The provisions of s, 5(e) of the Madras Act, applicable
to the present case, are the same as those of s. 5(j) of
the Trav'ancore Cochin Agricultural Income Tax Act
(Act XXII of 1950). The only difference is in the last
few words, In place of "for the purpose of the plan-
tation" in the former, the words "for the purpose of
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPOR'l'S
287
deriving the agricultural income" are used in the latter.
196.0
If anything the words of the former Act are more
.t:
bl
h
d
The Commissiontr
1avoura e to t e respon ent.
,
.
of Ag>icultural
In Travancore Rub

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.