CENTRAL TALKIES LIMITED Vs. DWARKA PRASAD
LAWS(SC)-1961-1-18
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on
January 16,1961
CENTRAL TALKIES
Appellant
VERSUS
DWARKA PRASAD
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
KEDAR NATH VS. MOOL CHAND [OVERRULED]K PARTHASARATHI NAIDU GARU VS. CKOTESWARA RAO GARU [OVERRULED]
PRABHAKAR KESHEO TARE AND OTHERS VS. EMPEROR [OVERRULED]
Cited Judgements :-
SARAT CHANDRA MUKHI VS. MOHAN NAIK [LAWS(ORI)-2009-8-12] [REFERRED TO]CANTONMENT BOARD AMBALA VS. LACHHMAN DAS HARI RAM [LAWS(P&H)-1962-1-13] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. DILIP SUDHAKAR PENDSE AND OTHERS [LAWS(BOM)-2011-7-313] [REFERRED]
NAGARAJAN AND ORS. VS. THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS (ADMINISTRATION) DEPARTMENT AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-1982-4-39] [REFERRED TO]
A.M. SHAMSUDEEN AND ORS. VS. THE DIST. JUDGE AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-1990-3-73] [REFERRED TO]
PASHUPATI ADHIKARY VS. PRADYUT KUMAR ALIAS TARAPADA ADHIKARY [LAWS(CAL)-2003-5-32] [REFERRED TO]
RAMKISAN ONKARMAL AGRAWAL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1993-4-78] [REFERRED TO]
NAGNATH RAVENSIDHAPPA CHOLKHANE VS. OSMAN SAHEB MOHAMED SAHEB PANGAONKAR [LAWS(BOM)-1976-12-15] [REFERRED TO]
DAYARAM TULSHIRAM RAJGURU VS. MAMASAHEB ALIAS BALASAHEB BHIMRAO JANRAO [LAWS(BOM)-1998-10-16] [REFERRED TO]
CHATUR MOHAN VS. RAM BEHARI DIXIT [LAWS(ALL)-1963-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
GANESH RAO VS. SARPHINA DSOUZA BAI [LAWS(KAR)-1975-8-5] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SINGH VS. KANYA BAI [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-5-340] [REFERRED TO]
PENUMATSA NARSIMHA RAJU VS. ANDHRA JATIYA VIDYA PARISHAD MACHILIPATNAM KRISHNA DISTRICT [LAWS(APH)-2009-12-61] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD NAZAR JANI VS. SYED PEERULLA HUSSAIN [LAWS(APH)-2003-11-76] [REFERRED TO]
RAJU VS. MOHAMADABI [LAWS(MAD)-1993-7-14] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHWAR DUBEY VS. JOGINDRA LAL SAHA [LAWS(CAL)-1966-9-8] [REFERRED TO]
RAMBIHARI VS. BAIJ NATH SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-1987-8-44] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL KHANDWA VS. SANTOSHKUMAR [LAWS(MPH)-1974-9-1] [REFERRED TO]
BABULAL BHIKAJI MANDLOI VS. DATTATRAYA NARAYAN [LAWS(MPH)-1969-8-5] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. SUNDER BALA VS. 8TH ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, AGRA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1993-12-46] [REFERRED TO]
YOGESH MANGAKASEN BAHAL VS. RAJESH CHIMANRAO WABLE [LAWS(BOM)-2008-1-38] [REFERRED TO]
PANDURANG LAXMAN NAIK VS. STATE OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2005-9-103] [REFERRED TO]
MANGE VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1984-1-60] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH KUMAR VS. AGGARWAL PAPERS [LAWS(DLH)-2014-11-287] [REFERRED TO]
BALWANTRAO B KADAM VS. DISTRICT DEPUTY REGISTRAR CO OP SOCIETIES [LAWS(BOM)-1977-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH VS. HARISH KUMAR VISHWAKARMA [LAWS(CHH)-2014-8-20] [REFERRED TO]
ALOYSIUS C. ANTONY VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR [LAWS(KER)-2019-8-229] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN VS. APPELLATE RENT TRIBUNAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2021-7-123] [REFERRED TO]
THAKUR DAS VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1977-10-4] [FOLLOWED]
KIRIT SOMESHWAR SEVAK VS. BANSIDHAR JAYSHANKER PATHAK [LAWS(GJH)-1994-10-42] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. DILIP SUDHAKAR PENDSE [LAWS(BOM)-2011-7-32] [REFERRED TO]
HARI CHAND AGGARWAL VS. BATALA ENGINEERING CO LTD [LAWS(P&H)-1965-4-3] [REFERRED TO]
MADEPALLI VENKATA DURGA PRASADA RAO VS. RAMESWARA SWAMY VARI TEMPLE KAIKALURU [LAWS(APH)-1998-12-82] [REFERRED TO]
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KALAHANDI VS. RAHIN RAJ [LAWS(ORI)-1970-8-12] [REFERRED TO]
CHINARI ARJU PATRA VS. SADI RAMAMOHAN RAY [LAWS(ORI)-1971-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
JANARDAN PRASAD VS. KALINDRI PRASAD [LAWS(ALL)-1962-2-25] [REFERRED TO]
T V K SASTRY VS. DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER WARANGAL [LAWS(APH)-1979-9-22] [REFERRED TO]
SAMSUL HUDA VS. MQSHARAF HUSSAIN [LAWS(CAL)-2002-4-52] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. SHANTI PRASAD JAIN [LAWS(BOM)-1977-9-32] [REFERRED TO]
BEERA KOYA VS. ALI KOYA [LAWS(KER)-1971-12-26] [REFERRED TO]
S.M. REBELLO VS. E. ZOUPPAS [LAWS(KER)-1982-3-42] [REFERRED TO]
ENGINEERING AND METAL WORKERS UNION VS. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR [LAWS(BOM)-2003-1-131] [REFERRED TO]
BIMLA RANI KOHLI VS. BANDU MOTOR FINANCE PRIVATE LTD [LAWS(ALL)-1971-2-17] [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL MANAGER NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY VS. PARAS NATH TEWARI [LAWS(ALL)-1966-7-4] [REFERRED TO]
AB RASHID VS. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER [LAWS(J&K)-2004-8-12] [REFERRED TO]
SRI LAKSHMI VS. MUTHUVEERAN CHETTIAR [LAWS(MAD)-1985-7-22] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRASHEKARAPPA VS. BASAVANNAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-1991-8-16] [REFERRED TO]
M PAPA NAIK VS. COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL DAVANGERE [LAWS(KAR)-1996-3-64] [FOLLOWED ON]
RADHA KISHAN YADAV VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-11-44] [REFERRED TO]
S B P AND CO VS. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD [LAWS(SC)-2005-10-34] [REFERRED TO]
MOTI RAM VS. MALI RAM [LAWS(RAJ)-1978-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
K.K.HAMSA VS. ATHIKOTTU SNEHALETHA [LAWS(KER)-2020-12-416] [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDER GILL VS. DEV SAMAJ COUNCIL SOCIETY AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-1989-2-96] [REFERRED TO]
MUKRI GOPALAN VS. CHEPPILAT PUTHANPURAYIL ABOOBACKER [LAWS(SC)-1995-7-48] [RELIED ON]
JITENDER SINGH AULAKH VS. ARUN KUMAR MITTAL [LAWS(DLH)-2009-3-157] [REFERRED TO]
P AISHA POTTY VS. R O KOLLAM DISTRICT PANCHAYATH [LAWS(KER)-2001-10-78] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVINKANT KESHAVLAL PARIKH VS. BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FOR GREATER BOMBAY [LAWS(BOM)-1980-6-7] [REFERRED TO]
K K VENKAIMARBON VS. DAKSHINAMOORTHY [LAWS(MAD)-1980-1-20] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. P THOMAS [LAWS(KER)-1961-12-19] [REFERRED TO]
N P BERRY VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-1978-10-3] [REFERRED 501). (3)]
HARI SHANKAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U P AND 4 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-722] [REFERRED TO]
HAJI SHAIK HYDER ALI VS. STATE [LAWS(ORI)-1970-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
MANGAL RAM VS. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [LAWS(P&H)-1977-4-32] [REFERRED]
THE STATE VS. INDER SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1965-11-27] [REFERRED TO]
R ASHOK VS. SUSILA JEYARAJ [LAWS(MAD)-2014-4-146] [REFERRED TO]
SURYA PRAKASH AND ORS. VS. MD. YOUNUS AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-1995-10-98] [REFERRED TO]
PARASMAL VS. DEVILAL [LAWS(RAJ)-1965-7-23] [REFERRED TO]
Kishan Singh VS. State of Rajasthan [LAWS(RAJ)-1973-2-20] [REFERRED TO]
ANANTRAI MOHANLAL MEHTA VS. HARILAL KALYANJI TAJAWALA [LAWS(GJH)-1983-2-5] [REFERRED]
GANESH PRASAD AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-366] [REFERRED TO]
ESTATE OFFICER CUM CANTONMENT EXECUTIVE OFFICER VS. 3RD ADDL CIVIL JUDGE ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-1987-7-14] [REFERRED TO]
VASU VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE [LAWS(KER)-2000-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
APPASAHEB BHANUDAS VASKAR VS. TATYASAHEB BALASAHEB KORE [LAWS(BOM)-1981-9-32] [REFERRED TO]
SURAJ NARAIN VS. THE STATE [LAWS(P&H)-1962-11-39] [REFERRED TO]
PARIMI VENKANNA VS. MANAGING PARTNER THE MODERN SPUN PIPE CO BHIMAVARAM [LAWS(APH)-1973-11-19] [REFERRED TO]
HARSHAD GUPTA, S/O BHAGIRATHI GUPTA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH POLICE STATION BAGHBAHAR [LAWS(CHH)-2019-5-70] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MYSORE VS. P SHANKARANARAYANA RAO [LAWS(KAR)-1975-7-14] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. SRI RAM BABOO KESARI [LAWS(ALL)-1989-9-12] [REFERRED TO]
SURINDRA MOHAN VS. DHARAM CHAND ABROL [LAWS(J&K)-1970-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
SREENIVASA KAMMATH VS. ANANDA KAMMATH AND SONS [LAWS(KER)-1991-12-9] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI C. BALJEE VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) [LAWS(HPH)-1990-11-12] [REFERRED TO]
TARACHAND VS. KRISHNA GOPAL [LAWS(RAJ)-1963-11-14] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN DUTT VS. IBRAHIM [LAWS(RAJ)-1997-1-13] [REFERRED TO]
BABU LAL JAIN & 2 ORS. VS. DISTRICT JUDGE, BIKANER [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-4-62] [REFERRED TO]
KOTHARI and CO VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1985-1-32] [REFERRED TO]
DESAM VENKATESWARA REDDY VS. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR & COMPETENT AUTHORITY, GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. [LAWS(APH)-2014-6-119] [REFERRED TO]
RAVISHANKAR DUBE VS. BOARD OF REVENUE MADHYA PRADESH GWALIOR [LAWS(MPH)-1972-9-9] [REFERRED TO]
SURYA PRAKASH VS. MOHAMMAD YOUNOUS [LAWS(APH)-1995-10-71] [REFERRED TO]
L K PHANESH BABU VS. MOHAMMAD AKBAR [LAWS(APH)-2002-12-37] [REFERRED TO]
BAL GOPAL DAS VS. MOHAN SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-1964-2-3] [REFERRED TO]
NIRJLA SINGH VS. STATE OF M P & ANDOTHER [LAWS(MPH)-2018-1-456] [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.
"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.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.