1966 (10) TMI 32

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se he had purchased the ready harvested crops. Income in respect of those crops was not, therefore, derived by the respondent by any agricultural operations carried on by the respondent, or by performance by the respondent of any process ordinarily employed by a cultivator to render the produce raised or received by him fit to be taken to the market, or by the sale by the respondent of produce raised or received by it. The crops, which had already been harvested, were raised and removed from the land by the vendor from whom the respondent purchased these crops. The sale price received by the vendor might have been treated as agricultural income of the vendor who had raised the crops and sold these harvested crops to the respondent. In no ca .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e of the entire crop of the year 1950-51 represented agricultural income of the respondent, and, consequently, added the amount of Rs. 2,16,000, representing its value, to the agricultural income of the respondent and assessed the tax thereon. The respondent's appeal to the Deputy Commissioner for Agricultural Income-tax failed. The respondent applied to the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax asking for a reference of the following question to the Mysore High Court : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax was right in holding that the applicants were liable to be assessed to agricultural income-tax on the entire income from the Dubarry Group of Estates for the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ricultural Income-tax has now come up to this court, by special leave, in this appeal against the first part of the answer. It appears to us that the first part of the answer returned by the High Court is so obvious that hardly anything at all can be said to challenge it. The crops of the land, which was purchased by the respondent during the account year in question, it appears, were at two stages. Some of those crops had been harvested, while others were standing. These crops were also purchased. The High Court has already held that the net realisations by the respondent from crops standing at the time of purchase will be included in the agricultural income of the respondent under the Act. With the correctness of this answer we are not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X