TMI Blog1986 (7) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch was the subject of remission must be capable of being described as agricultural income. As the High Court has observed in the present case " what was returned to the assessee has nothing to do with the activities of the assessee, it does not arise from business nor does it arise from agricultural operations when the assessee is an agriculturist " In regard to sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, that it has been replaced by an even wider provision as sub-section (1) of section 41 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. No provision of that nature finds place in the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act. Appeal dismissed. - - - - - Dated:- 15-7-1986 - Judge(s) : R. S. PATHAK., SABYASACHI MUKHARJI JUDGMENT The ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sum of Rs. 33,747.09 credited in the relevant previous year could be assessed to tax for the year 1964-65. The Tribunal, by majority, held that it was not agricultural income. At the instance of the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Kerala, a reference was made to the High Court of Kerala under sub-section (2) of section 60 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act on the question of law set forth earlier and the High Court has answered the question in the affirmative. The High Court has taken the view that it was immaterial that the assesses followed the mercantile system of accounting, because the case was not one of an actual or constructive receipt or any receipt at all but only one of remission. According to the High Court, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ricultural income. There has been serious controversy through the years on the question whether an amount refunded or remitted constitutes the income of an assessee. In CIT v. Lakshmamma [1964] 52 ITR 789, the Mysore High Court took the view that a refund received by the assessee in respect of excise fees payable by him amounted to a revenue receipt liable to tax. In that case, however, the High Court specifically made a distinction between cases of refund and cases of remission, and it appears to have taken the position that an amount received as remission of duty could not be treated as a revenue receipt, while an amount received by way of refund could be. In the judgment under appeal, the High Court of Kerala noticed that decision and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
