Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (2.57 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Kerala And Others vs Bhavani Tea Produce Co. Ltd on 7 October, 1965

B.M. Shivakumar vs State Of Karnataka And Another on 24 November, 1995

21. At this juncture, it is necessary to determine as to how the income derived out of sale of coffee to the Coffee Board has to be determined and assessed keeping in view the provisions of the Coffee Board Act, 1942. This question, in my opinion, has been conclusively answered by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala v. Bhavani Tea Produce Co. Ltd. , with reference to the Madras Plantations Agricultural Income-tax Act (5 of 1955) as extended to the State of Kerala. The provisions of the principal Act and that of the Madras Act are almost in pari materia. On examining the scheme of the Coffee Board Act, it has been held by the Supreme Court that as soon as planters deliver coffee to the Coffee Board there is a sale by operation of law in favour of the latter. But the liability to pay agricultural income-tax on the income arising out of such sale depends upon the system of accounting employed by the assessee-planter. It has further been held that if the system of accounting is cash in nature, the income would be taxable when it is actually received; but in the mercantile system it would be taxable in the year in which the relevant entry is made about the sale of coffee to the Coffee Board.
Karnataka High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Agricultural ... vs Raja Rajeswari Narikelly Estate on 18 February, 1992

Since the handing over of coffee by the planter amounts to a sale to the Coffee Board and the mercantile system of accounting adopted by the assessee renders the income as one accrued in the year in which the relevant entry is made about the sale of coffee to the Coffee Board, we are of the view that the Appellate Tribunal was in error in deleting the sum of Rs. 5,85,025.10 which was the difference as per the award made by the Coffee Board for the coffee delivered during the season July 1, 1976, to June 30, 1977. The fact that the award made by the Coffee Board was not known by the close of the accounting period and became known only at a later point of time has no consequence since, before the assessment was completed, the award made by the Coffee Board was known and the quantum and the valuation declared by the Coffee Board were substituted for the estimate of income made by the assessee. The view of the Appellate Tribunal to the contrary and directing deletion of the addition of Rs. 5,85,025.10 received by the assessee for the accounting period 1976-77 (assessment year 1978-79), though definitely known later is a clear error of law. The view of the Appellate Tribunal militates against the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhavani Tea Produce Co.'s case [1966] 59 ITR 254.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - K S Paripoornan - Full Document

H. Kenche Gowda vs State Of Karnataka (Joint Commissioner ... on 8 June, 1988

In State of Kerala v. Bhavani Tea Produce Co. Ltd. , the Supreme Court held that when growers delivered coffee crop under section 25 of the Coffee Act to the Board, all their rights therein were extinguished and coffee crop exclusively vested in the Board. In the present case, the crop that is involved is coffee and the income that arises from payment made by the Coffee Board is back pool payment. The expression "disposed of" is understood as "transfer of goods to another".
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

E.M.V. Muthappan vs Agricultural Income-Tax Officer And ... on 1 September, 1989

However, learned council fop the petitioner contented that the decision in Rajalinga Ridge's case , must be confined to the facts of that case and sought to rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala v. Bhavani Tea Produce Co. Ltd. [1966] 59 ITR 254 to contend that coffee delivered to the coffee Board becomes the property of the Board no sooner it is delivered and, therefore, the sale was completed when the coffee was delivered to the Coffee Board.
Karnataka High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Food Corporation Of India, Etc. Etc. vs State Of Kerala on 28 January, 1997

In 1966 this Court in the case of State of Kerala v. Bhavani Tea Produce Co. ), (unanimous decision of Bench of five learned Judge) which arose under the Madras Plantations Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 held that when growers delivered coffee under Section 25 of the Act to the Board all their rights therein were extinguished and the coffee vested exclusively in the Board. This Court observed that when growers delivered coffee to the Board, though the grower "does not actually sell" the coffee to the Board, there was a sale by operation of law. This was in connection with Section 25 of the Act. The Court, however, did not hold that there was a taxable sale by the grower to the Board in the year in question. The sale, according to this Court in that case took place in earlier years in which the Agricultural Income-tax Act did not operate. All the States in which coffee is grown and all the persons concerned with the coffee industry, it is asserted on behalf of the Additional Solicitor General, understood this decision as laying down that the sale by operation of law' mentioned therein only meant the compulsory acquisition of the coffee by the Coffee Board.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - K Venkataswami - Full Document

S. S. Rajalinga Raja vs State Of Madras on 26 October, 1966

The decision in State of Kerala and Anr v. Bhavani Tea Produce -Co. Ltd.(1) on which reliance was placed by counsel for the appellant has, in our judgment, no relevance whatever in this case. In Bhavani Tea Produce Company's case (1) the assessee was required under s. 25 of the Coffee Act, 1942, to deliver the coffee produced by it to the Coffee Board and the question which fell to be determined was whether such delivery constituted sale by operation of law as a result of which the assessee ceased to be the owner of the coffee, the moment it handed over the produce to the Coffee Board. This Court held that under the relevant provisions of the Act as soon as the producer of coffee handed over the produce to the Coffee Board, it ceased to be the owner and income accrued to him at that point of time. That case does not lay down the proposition that income accrues to a producer of agricultural produce before the date of disposal, use or sale.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 16 - J C Shah - Full Document

Coffee Board, Karnataka, Bangalore vs Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes on 11 May, 1988

It was submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General that these cases, namely, Bhavani Tea Estate (supra) and Vishnu Agencies (supra) would have no application within the set up of the Coffee Act because the provisions of the statute expressly provided that there could be no sale or contract of sale, yet the High Court had for purposes of Sales Tax assumed (notwithstanding the statutory prohibi-
Supreme Court of India Cites 53 - Cited by 23 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Food Corporation Of India Etc. Etc vs State Of Kerala on 6 January, 1997

In 1966 this Court in the case of State of Kerala vs. Bhavani Tea Produce Co. (unanimous decision of a Bench of five learned Judges) which arose under the Madras Plantations Agricultural Income Tax Act. 1955 held that when growers delivered coffee under section 25 of the Act to the Board all their rights therein were extinguished and the coffee vested exclusively in the Board. This Court observed that when growers delivered coffee to the Board, though the grower "does not actually sell" the coffee to the Board, there was a sale by operation of law. This was in connection with section 25 of the Act. The Court, however, did not hold that there was a taxable `sale' by the grower to the Board in the year in question. The sale, according to this Court in that case took place in earlier years in which the Agricultural Income Tax Act did not operate. All the States in which coffee is grown and all the persons concerned with the coffee industry, it is asserted on behalf of the Additional Solicitor General, understood this decision as laying down that the `sale by operation of law' mentioned therein only meant the `compulsory acquisition' of the coffee by the `Coffee Board. (Emphasis supplied)
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 22 - Full Document
1   2 Next