1988 (1) TMI 16

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the sums of Rs. 11,756.05 and Rs. 37,629.32 disallowed by the assessing authority as amounts spent for the maintenance and upkeep of immature plants under the two heads de weeding charges " and " fertiliser charges .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . v. Commr. of Agrl. I.T. [1961] ]41 ITR 751 was applicable to the claim of the assessee and it was, therefore, allowable. Counsel for the Revenue rightly contended that the Tribunal had lost sight of the fact that, subsequent to the decision of the Supreme Court relied on by the Tribunal, section 5 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, was amended by Act No. 9 of 1961, with effect from Apri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eep or maintenance of immature plants from which no agricultural income has been derived during the previous year." The Agricultural Income-tax Officer had found, as a matter of fact, that the amounts disallowed by him represented expenditure in relation to immature plants. That finding of fact has not been challenged by the assessee. The challenge is in regard to the construction of section 5, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X