9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (10) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case is as to whether the turnover representing the value of the coconuts sold by the respondent during the assessment year 1963-64 is entitled to exemption under the proviso to section 2(r) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. It is common ground that the respondent in this case took an annual lease of a coconut thope and that under the terms of the lease he had only a right to the usufruc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... awn to the decisions in Sultan Ahmed Rowther v. State of Madras[1954] 5 S.T.C. 166. and Palaniappa Pillai v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer[1971] 28 S.T.C. 502. In Palaniappa Pillai v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer[1971] 28 S.T.C. 502., after referring to the earlier decision in Sultan Ahmed Rowther v. State of Madras[1954] 5 S.T.C. 166. , Ramaprasada Rao, J., has considered an identical question a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax v. K. S. Imam Saheb[1969] 71 I.T.R. 742., wherein a question arose as to whether the income derived by sale of the coconuts gathered from thopes, which have been taken on lease by the assessee was "agricultural income" as defined in section 2(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the court had expressed the view that having regard to the definition of "agricultural income" in section 2( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purported to follow the decision of Venkatadri, J., in Jamal Mydeen v. State of Madras[1968] 22 S.T.C. 45. The learned judge has of course held therein that the usufruct of the coconut trees is a horticultural produce and, therefore, sale of coconuts by a lessee of coconut thopes is not liable to tax by virtue of the proviso to section 2(r) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. With due respect, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
