8,210 8 0 which was deducted from the gross proceeds of sale of the produce.
III of 1949 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The respondent was an agriculturist in the district of Agra, and was assessed to agricultural Income tax for the year 1358, Fasli.
In calculating the net income assessable, he allowed a margin of 50 for expenses, so that the sum allowed for expenses was Rs.
5,769 12 3 as expenses of cultivation.
The agricultural income from this source had to be companyputed under section 6 2 b of the Act because of the option exercised by the respondent.
16,421.
The State Government, through the Collector of Agra, filed an application for revision against this order of the assessing authority before the Boar of Revision, Agricultural Income tax, U.P., urging that the assessing authority had erred in allowing a deduction of the sum of Rs.
The assessing authority did number accept the figures of income given by the respondent and held that the yield from the cultivation was of the value of Rs.
10,899 as the proceeds of sale of all his agricultural produce and had claimed a sum of Rs.
Bhargava, J. This appeal brought up by special leave arises out of proceedings for assessment of agricultural Income tax under the U.P. Agricultural Income tax Act, 1948 U. P. Act No.
In the return filed, the respondent had shown a gross receipt of Rs.
The income that came up for assessment included income derived from direct agricultural operations carried on by the respondent himself.
