Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (1.51 seconds)
Documents citing Commr. Of Agrl. I.T. vs Pullangode Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. on 30 August, 1968

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Alanickal Co. Ltd. on 21 January, 1986

11. In the case of Kailas Rubber Co. Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 435, the Supreme Court held that the sale proceeds of old and unyielding rubber trees felled and sold is a capital asset. The Supreme Court noticed in that case that there was enough evidence in the record justifying the conclusion that the rubber trees form part of the capital asset of the assessee. The above decisions which have been relied on for the Revenue were decided in the context of there being separate sale of trees apart from the land. The question whether the sale of agricultural land with trees would involve a transfer of capital asset had not been considered in those decisions. The sale of rubber trees in an estate can attract capital gains only when the rubber trees form part of the capital asset. In the view that the rubber trees so long as they remain in the land form part of the agricultural land, it is difficult to hold that a transfer of the agricultural land with the standing rubber trees thereon involves a transfer of a capital asset.
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 14 - M F Beevi - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Travancore Rubber And Tea Co. Ltd. on 22 November, 1990

5. The crux of the reasoning of the Appellate Tribunal to hold that the said amount of Rs. 3,95,229 did not-constitute receipt by way of income in the hands of the assessee was that the business of the assessee consists in growing rubber trees and utilising the latex from the trees and not the sale of rubber trees, and as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Commr. of Agrl. I.T. v. Kailas Rubber and Co. Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 435, the sale of old and unyielding rubber trees would result in a capital receipt in the hands of the seller, and, in this background, amounts received by way of earnest money and advance towards the sale price to be adjusted as and when the contracts were concluded cannot be said to be amounts received by the assessee as trading receipts. At the time when the amounts were received, they were not trading receipts and the mere fact that, by a subsequent event, namely, by the breach of the contract, the assessee could appropriate the amount would not render the receipts as revenue receipts.
Kerala High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - K S Paripoornan - Full Document

The Rahabilitation Plantation Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 1 August, 2022

"In this court, the question again came up before a Division Bench in Commr. of Agrl. I. T. v. Nilambur Rubber Co. Ltd. [1969] 71 ITR 686, and the learned judges clearly stated that section 5(j) of the Kerala Act corresponds to the residuary provision in section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. They further clarified that this was so in spite of the slight difference in the language, section 5(j) of the Kerala Act using the words "for the purpose of deriving the (agricultural) income" and section 10(2)(xv) using, the words "for the purpose of such business, profession or vocation.
Kerala High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - S V Bhatt - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs T.K. Sarala Devi on 6 April, 1987

4. The reasoning of the Tribunal is that proceeds of sale of land constituted income derived from land. If that proposition was correct, the Tribunal would be justified in saying that proceeds of sale of land used for agricultural purposes were income derived from agricultural land within the meaning of Section 2(1) and, therefore, not chargeable under the Act. But the fallacy of that assumption is that, when land is sold, the sale proceeds do not constitute revenue but capital: (see Commr. of Agrl. 2.T. v. Kailas Rubber & Co. Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 435 (SC) and Vishnudatta Antharjanam v. Commr. of Agrl. I.T. [1970] 78 ITR 58 (SC). The profits or gains arising from the sale of land constitute income because Section 2(24) of the Act includes as " income " capital gains chargeable under Section 45. Such gain is, nevertheless, not income derived from land ; it is income derived by the sale of land. Although land is the source of the income, income is derived not by the use of the land, but by the sale of the land, that is, by conversion of the land into cash. If income results from the sale of agricultural land, it is not " agricultural income " within the meaning of Section 2(1).
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 24 - T K Thommen - Full Document
1   2 Next