9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (5) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 1,096 realised by the assessee-family on the sale of the trees was income liable to tax ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income from gur business was agricultural income, not liable to tax? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amounts of Rs. 16,000 and Rs. 41,805 received by the assessee-family from Kashiram and Devi Chand, respectively, constituted its income ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the following expenses are permissible deductions : (1) Rs. 2,640 legal charges. (2) Rs. 1,381 interest. (3) Rs. 350 travelling expenses ? 5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Seth Banarsi Das acquired 1/6t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... land of the trees which were of spontaneous growth. The assessee had neither purchased the land nor the trees with the intention of re-selling them at profit. What the assessee had acquired was a capital asset comprising land and the trees standing thereon, and when the assessee removed the trees and sold them as fuel wood, it merely realised a part of its capital. The circumstances of the case do not show that the assessee had undertaken any business activity or any adventure in the nature of trade. We, accordingly, answer question No. 1 in the negative. The assessee had raised sugarcane crop on the farm land. Part of the sugarcane crop was sold as such, while the remaining was converted into gur. The Income-tax Officer estimated the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re of the commodity remained the same even after the application of the process. When sugarcane is converted into gur it results in the production of a different commodity. The conversion of sugarcane into gur is not a necessary process performed by a cultivator to render sugarcane fit for being taken to the market. Moreover, the Tribunal has found as a fact that it was not true that the assessee was obliged to convert the sugarcane into gur as it was not in a position to dispose of the sugarcane as such. On these findings the case is not covered by section 2(1)(b)(ii). We, accordingly, answer question No 2 in the negative. Question No. 3 is covered by the decision of this court in Seth Banarsi Das Gupta v. Commissioner of Income-tax [197 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
