The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Kerala in Tax Revision No.
December 15.
If anything the words of the former Act are more favourable to the respondent.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 18, 1958, of the Kerala High Court in Tax Revision Case No.
In Travancore Rubber and Tea Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax, Kerala 1 , which was an assessment under the Travancore Cochin Act, we have decided the question of deductibility of sums expended for purposes of forking, manuring etc.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No, 145 of 1960.
12 of 1957.
The respondent who is the assessee owned an estate of 590 acres in South Malabar district, number in Kerala State.
The appellant then preferred a revision application to the High Court under s. 54 1 of the Madras Plantations Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1955 Mad.
V of 1955 .
Of that area 235 acres were occupied by immature number bearing rubber trees and 270 acres had mature rubber trees.
The respondent claimed from out of the income expenses relating to the maintenance and upkeep of immature number bearing rubber trees.
Out of that area 85 acres were companyered by Pepper, Arecanut, Paddy and Coconut cultivation while the rest i.e. 505 acres had rubber plantations upon it.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, Thomas Vellapally, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the respondent.
The assessment relates to the year 1955 56, the accounting year being the year ending March 31, 1955.
The Agricultural Income tax Tribunal held that the expenses incurred on the whole area under rubber plantations were deductible expenses and remanded the case for ascertaining the expenses incurred in forking and manuring of the number bearing and immature rubber grown areas also.
12 of 1957.
In place of for the purpose of the plantation in the former, the words for the purpose of deriving the agricultural income are used in the latter.
A. Seyid Muhamad and Sardar Bahadur, for the appellant.
