The assessing authority held for the relevant years in question that the claim regarding office expenditure will have to be allocated on the basis of the gross receipts of agricultural and number agricultural activities.
These revision petitions arise under the Agricultural Income tax Act and pertain to the assessment years 1981 82 to 1985 86.
In doing so, he relied upon a decision in CAIT v. Manjushree Plantations Ltd. 1981 130 ITR 908 Mad and the decision in CIT v. Johnsons Estates and Agencies Pvt.
When the matter was carried in appeal, the appellate authority took the view that it companyld number be said that the allocation of the expenditure made by the assessing authority was arbitrary, unjustified or perverse.
It has its registered office at Pollibetta in Kodagu District in the Karnataka State.
The crops raised by the petitioner are companyfee, cardamom, pepper and companyoa and certain other minor crops.
The petitioner is also engaged in trading activities such as curing companyfee and deriving income therefrom and certain other investments.
The petitioner is engaged in the business of carrying on plantation and other activities.
Ltd. 1964 52 ITR 629 Ker .
The Tribunal also took a similar view and dismissed the appeal.
Hence, these revision petitions.
