Agricultural income requires cultivation and labour; forest timber receipts and related interest were held outside the definition.

Forest sale receipts were not treated as agricultural income because the evidence showed only exploitation of forest trees and timber, not cultivation of the land or expenditure of skill and labour. Bankura forest receipts were held neither capital receipts nor agricultural income, and Kharagpur timber receipts were also held outside agricultural income on the same principle. Interest receipts from the Babuana and Dayana grantees were not rent or revenue derived from land and were likewise excluded from agricultural income. The claimed debt due from P.E. Guzadar & Co. was not allowable as a business loss under the earlier binding view applied to the case.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether receipts from Bankura forest were capital receipts or agricultural income; (ii) whether receipts from Kharagpur forest from sale of timber were agricultural income; (iii) whether interest receipts from Babuana and Dayana grantees were agricultural income; (iv) whether the debt due from P.E. Guzadar & Co. was allowable as a business loss.

Issue (i): Whether receipts from Bankura forest were capital receipts or agricultural income.

Analysis: The lease was for the exploitation and sale of forest trees, and the receipts were not shown to be salami or consideration for transfer of a capital asset. Income derived from the sale of forest trees is taxable income even where the source is a wasting property. The materials also did not show that the forest income fell within the statutory definition of agricultural income, as there was no proof of cultivation of the land or of expenditure of skill and labour upon it.

Conclusion: The receipts from Bankura forest were neither capital receipts nor agricultural income, and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether receipts from Kharagpur forest from sale of timber were agricultural income.

Analysis: The evidence showed only conservancy measures, limited clearing around trees, and some proposed coppice work, but no proved cultivation of the land. On the governing interpretation of agricultural income, the land must be used for agricultural purposes, which requires at least some cultivation and expenditure of skill and labour upon it. Mere forest conservancy or regular forestry operations without such cultivation was insufficient on the facts found.

Conclusion: The receipts from Kharagpur forest from sale of timber were not agricultural income, and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether interest receipts from Babuana and Dayana grantees were agricultural income.

Analysis: Interest receipts were not rent or revenue derived from land, and they had already been held not to fall within agricultural income.

Conclusion: The interest receipts were not agricultural income, and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the debt due from P.E. Guzadar & Co. was allowable as a business loss.

Analysis: The claim was governed by the earlier binding view on the same question, under which the debt was not deductible as a business loss.

Conclusion: The debt was not allowable as a business loss, and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The references were answered against the assessee on all material questions, and the proceedings were dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: For forest produce to qualify as agricultural income under the Income-tax Act, there must be cultivation of the land and expenditure of skill and labour upon it; mere natural growth, forest conservancy, or exploitation of timber does not suffice.

---