9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (6) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was found against by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer as well as by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and also by the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the question whether income derived from slaughter tapping is agricultural income, and held that when the assessee himself performs slaughter tapping, the income derived by him is agricultural income liable to tax. On the application of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred to this court the question: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income derived from the old rubber trees on slaughter tapping is agricultural income as defined in clause (a) of section 2 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950?" The question whether income received from "sl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her part which is attributable to the value of the trees is not liable to tax." The next case that is brought to our notice is the decision of Isaac J. in Yoosuf v. Income-tax Officer [1970] 77 ITR 237 (Ker). There the question arose as to the nature of the income derived from rubber obtained by slaughter-tapping by the purchaser permitted to slaughter-tap. The question was whether it is agricultural income or income liable to be taxed under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Isaac J. held that it is non-agricultural income. The decision was confirmed in appeal. The decision in appeal is Agricultural Income-tax Officer v. Yoosuf [1973] 90 ITR 501 (Ker). Raghavan C.J. referred to E. J. John's case and distinguished it on the ground that it c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to hold that there has been no transfer of an interest in land. And so the amounts received will not fall within the definition of the term 'agricultural income' in the Act." Another decision cited at the bar is Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax v. Woodlands Estates Ltd. [1972] ILR 2 Ker 614. Here the question arose as to the liability of the owner of land (a company) to agricultural income-tax in respect of the amount received by it as consideration for sale of rubber trees for slaughter-tapping. The Tribunal had held that the amount is not taxable on the ground that there was no lease by the assessee, and consequently the sum did not represent rent received. The two questions referred to this court related only as to the correctne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ither of the amount received by the owner from the purchaser allowed to slaughter-tap, or of the amount received by the latter from sale of rubber he obtained from slaughter-tapping. We are afraid that none of these decisions have any application to the instant case. Here the slaughter-tapping was by the owner himself. The rubber obtained by him, in whatever manner he tapped his trees, is his, and the receipts by him from sale of rubber obtained by such tapping is "income derived from land which is used for agricultural purposes", within the meaning of section 2(a) of the Act. Such receipts in the hands of one who has no interest in the lands on which the trees are standing may not be agricultural income, but not so in the hands of the owne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
