TRAVANCORE RUBBER AND TEA CO LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX KERALA
LAWS(SC)-1960-12-24
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KERALA)
Decided on December 15,1960

TRAVANCORE RUBBER AND TEA COMPANY LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX,KERALA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

SAHNEY STEEL AND PRESS WORKS LIMITED HYDERABAD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX A P I HYDERABAD [LAWS(SC)-1997-9-136] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. KUSUM PRODUCTS LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-1984-3-16] [REFERRED TO]
KIL KOTAGIRI TEA AND COFFEE ESTATES COMPANY LIMITED VS. GOVERNMENT OF MADRAS [LAWS(MAD)-1972-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA VS. COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX [LAWS(KER)-1968-8-20] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. TUNGABHADRA INDUSTRIES LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1991-11-13] [REFERRED TO]
BAKER R G A VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1978-10-23] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX KERALA VS. PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD [LAWS(SC)-2000-11-170] [REFERRED]
MOHAN MEAKIN BREWERIES LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(HPH)-1996-10-7] [REFERRED TO]
RALLIS INDIA LIMITED VS. GOPAL JI SHUKLA [LAWS(ALL)-2008-7-221] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX VS. BOMBAY BURMAH TRADING CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(KER)-1980-1-11] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX VS. MIDLAND RUBBER AND PRODUCE COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(KER)-1989-10-44] [REFERRED TO]
S NAGAMANI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1997-8-12] [REFERRED TO]
TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX [LAWS(ALL)-2008-8-359] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX VS. MIDLAND RUBBER & PRODUCE CO. LTD. [LAWS(KER)-1982-10-40] [REFERRED TO]
TRAVANCORE RUBBER AND TEA CO LIMITED ALLEPPEY IN ALL PETNS VS. STATE OF KERALA IN ALL THE PETNS [LAWS(SC)-1962-11-27] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX VS. JOHNSONS ESTATES AND AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(KER)-1963-8-38] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX VS. KERALA ESTATE PLANTATIONS [LAWS(KER)-1972-3-5] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX VS. MALAYALAM PLANTATIONS LIMITED [LAWS(KER)-1978-7-24] [REFERRED TO]
COMMR OF AGRL INCOMETAX VS. BOMBAY BURMAH TRADING CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(KER)-1980-1-29] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MALAYALAM PLANTATIONS LIMITED [LAWS(KER)-1987-3-49] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX VS. DARICO CANNINGS LIMITED [LAWS(KER)-1988-1-38] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. RUBY RUBBER WORKS LIMITED [LAWS(KER)-1989-4-4] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Kapur, J. - (1.)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 and 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.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.