1993 (2) TMI 69

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... la Agricultural Income-tax Act. The respondent is the Revenue. In this revision, we are concerned with the assessment year 1987-88. The assessee-revision petitioner assails the common order passed by the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated February 1, 1991, in so far as it relates to the assessment year 1987-88. The revision petitioner purchased the property in his name, in the names .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fore the Appellate Tribunal, the revision petitioner did not dispute the rejection of the returns and the yield estimated based on local inspection. He did not dispute also the expenses allowed except tapping wages and relative bonus payment claim. In this court, the controversy is only regarding tapping wages. It is contended that the authorities declined to allow adequate tapping expenses. The A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... covered by the guidelines. It was also held that there is no justifiable ground for interference by the Appellate Tribunal. The question as to the quantum of amount allowable as tapping expenses is largely a question of fact. As the final fact-finding authority, the Appellate Tribunal, after adverting to the relevant factors in that regard, has concluded that the tapping expenses allowed are ad .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X