Rubber replanting subsidy treated as capital receipt, not taxable agricultural income, because it funded replantation and production increase.

Subsidy received from the Rubber Board under the Replanting Subsidy Scheme, 1970, was treated as a capital receipt because the scheme was designed to encourage replantation of rubber trees and increase production. The fact that the subsidy was quantified per hectare and paid in instalments to ensure use for replantation supported its capital character. Any incidental use for maintenance expenses did not alter the nature of the receipt, since maintenance was subordinate to the main object of replantation. Earlier decisions on similar rubber replanting subsidies and Supreme Court guidance distinguishing reimbursements of maintenance expenditure reinforced the view that the subsidy was not revenue income and was not taxable as agricultural income.

---

---

Issues: Whether the subsidy received from the Rubber Board under the Replanting Subsidy Scheme, 1970, was a revenue receipt liable to agricultural income-tax or a capital receipt not taxable.

Analysis: The subsidy was granted under a scheme intended to encourage replantation of rubber trees and to increase rubber production. The amount was quantified per hectare and paid in instalments over several years to ensure proper utilisation for replantation purposes. The fact that part of the subsidy may have been used for maintenance expenses did not change the character of the receipt, because maintenance was only incidental to the main object of replantation. Earlier decisions on similar rubber replanting subsidy schemes and the Supreme Court's ruling distinguishing subsidies paid to reimburse maintenance expenditure supported the view that a replanting subsidy is not revenue income.

Conclusion: The subsidy was a capital receipt and not liable to be included in taxable agricultural income.

---