TMI Blog1965 (12) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dgment of the court was delivered by SATYANARAYANA RAJU J.-- This is an appeal, by special leave, against the order of the High Court of Kerala dated August 2, 1963, in Income-tax Reference Case No. 48/62 (Agricultural). The facts leading to this appeal may be briefly stated. The respondent is a company which owned a rubber estate purchased by it along with the plantation thereon. The estate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ural income. By order dated November 30, 1960, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the contention of the respondent. The respondent thereupon preferred a second appeal to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum. By its order dated August 18, 1962, the Tribunal accepted the contention of the respondent and held that the sum of Rs. 8,532.50 representing the sale proceeds of rubber ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant's contention mainly is that the sum of Rs. 8,532.50 was in the nature of a revenue receipt and had to be included in computing the agricultural income. The contention of the respondent is that the sale proceeds of the rubber trees which have been planted for the purpose of yielding latex, but were cut down and sold after they had ceased to yield any further, could not be in the nature ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lude proceeds from the sale of rubber trees in an estate which were utilised for the purpose of deriving income in the shape of latex. There was enough evidence in the record justifying the High Court's conclusion that the rubber trees formed part of the capital assets of the respondent. Admittedly, the respondent did not grow the rubber trees for the purpose of selling them. It was getting income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
