THE TRAVANCORE RUBBER AND TEA CO., LTD. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX, KERALA

Citation: [1961] 3 S.C.R. 279 · Decided: 15-12-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.L. KAPUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

> 
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
279 
income tax on the amounts of remuneration paid to 
z96o 
their transferees. The court was not called upon to 
R. G. s. Naidu 
apply to income received by the assessee the principle 
.,. co. 
of apportionment under r. 9 of Sch. 1 of the Excess 
v. 
Profits Tax Act, or any provision similar thereto. It commissioner of 
is r. 9 of Sch. 1 which attracts the principle of appor-
Income-tax 
tionment. The rule enunciated in M/s. E. D. Sassoon and Excess Profits 
a , 
(') h 
h 
,, 
1. t' 
h' 
Tax, Madras 
& o. s case 
as t ere1ore no a pp 1ca 10n to t 1s case, 
· 
and the High Court was right in holding that the 
Shah J. 
assessment made by the Excess Profits Tax Offcer 
by apportionment of the commission income between 
the chargeable accounting periods was correct. 
The appeals therefore fail and are dismissed with 
costs. One hearing fee. 
.t1J1Jieals dismissed. 
THE TRAV ANCORE RUBBER AND TEA 
CO., LTD. 
v. 
THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL 
INCOME-TAX, KERALA 
(J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH and 
J. c. SHAH, JJ.) 
4gricultural Income Tax-Rubber Plantation-Expenditure on 
immature trees-Whether permissible deduction-Travancore-Cochin 
Agricultural lticome-tax Act, r950 (Tr. Co. XXII of r950), s. 5. 
In computing the agricultural.income of a person s. 5(f) of 
the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, allow-
ed deductions of any expenditure "laid out wholly and exclu-
sively for purpose of deriving the agricultural income". The 
assessee who had rubber plantations claimed that the amount 
expended on the maintenance and tending of immature rubber 
trees should be deducted in computing its agricultural income 
but this was disallowed on the ground that the use of the article 
"the" before the words agricultural income implied deduction 
(1) (1955) I S.C.R. 313. 
280 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1961] 
from the income of the year in which the trees on which the 
amount was expended bore income. 
The T.avancor1 
Held, that the assessee was entitled to the deduction claim-
Rubber and Tia ed. It was no answer to the claim for the deduction that these 
Co., Ltd. 
expenses produced no return in the year in question as the trees 
v. . . 
were not yielding rubber in that year. 
The Commimoner 
Vallambrosa Rubber Co. Lt'd. v. Farmer, (rgro) 5 T. C. 529, 
of Agricultural followed. 
Income~tax. 
Ksrala 
Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income-
tax, West Bengal, [1955] I S.C.R. 972, not applicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 
290 to 292 of 1959. 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated December 6, 1957, of the Kerala High 
Court in Agricultural Income-tax Referred Cases Nos. 
15, 18 and 19 of 1955. 
O. K. Daphtary, Solicitor.General of India, Thomas 
Vellapally and M. R. K. Pillai, for the appellants 
(in all the appeals) 
· 
Sar<lar Bahadur, for the respondents. 
1960. December 15. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
Kapur J. 
KAPUR, J.-These three appeals are brought by 
special leave against the judgment and order of the 
High Court of Kera.la and arise out of a common 
judgment of that court given in three Agricultural 
Income-tax Refe1·ences Nos. 15, 18 and 19 of 1955. In 
the first reference the question raised was: 
"Whether under the Travancore-Cochin Agricul-
tural Income Tax Act, 1950 in calculating the asses-
sable 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: 
-: 
-
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
281 
"Whether the expenses incurred for the mainte-
r96o 
nance and upkeep of immature rubber trees consti-
Th T 
. "bl d d 
t• 
"th" 
h 
. 
f 
e ravancore 
tute a perm1ss1 e e uc 10n WI · m t e meanmg o 
Rubber and Tea 
s. 5(j) of Act XXII of 1950?" 
Co., Ltd. 
In all the references the questions were answered in 
v. . . 
the negative and against the appellant. 
The Con~m•moner 
• 
of Agricultural 
The appeals Telate to three acconntmg years 1950, 
Income-ta>, 
1951 and 1952 (assessment years 1951-52, 1952,53 
Kerala 
and 1953-54). The appellants have rubber plantations 
and in

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