9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Assessment of income from the sale of bamboos as revenue or capital receipt for the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76, and 1976-77 under the Income-tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The case involved the assessment of income from the sale of bamboos by a registered firm running a coffee and tea estate. The firm had shade trees, including bamboos, for which permits were issued for removal. The firm had previously been taxed on the income from selling live bamboos. However, for the years in question, the firm argued that the sale proceeds from the bamboos removed at the roots constituted capital gains, not liable to tax. The Income-tax Officer contended that the sale of bamboos could be of revenue nature and thus taxable. The Commissioner of Income-tax analyzed the facts and permits, concluding that the sale of dead and flowered bamboos was a capital receipt, distinct from the revenue earned by periodic cutting of live bamboos. The Commissioner relied on a Supreme Court decision to support this distinction. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision. The Department argued that systematically exploiting live bamboo clumps involved periodic cutting at optimum growth stages, leaving behind growth for future cycles. They contended that removing dead and flowered bamboos, along with the sale proceeds, constituted revenue taxable under the Income-tax Act. The assessee's counsel maintained that while revenue from periodic cutting was offered for tax, the sale proceeds from dead and flowered bamboos were capital in nature as they were removed once for all. Citing the Supreme Court decision, the counsel argued that such proceeds were capital receipts, not revenue. The Court concurred, stating that the sale of dead and flowered bamboos, being a one-time removal, was akin to the sale of trees affecting capital structure. Therefore, the sale proceeds were deemed capital receipts, not subject to taxation as revenue. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, answering the question against the Department. No costs were awarded in the judgment.
|
