Agricultural income from actual cultivation upheld, with concurrent factual findings insufficient to raise a substantial question of law.

Income from sugarcane cultivation on land leased or otherwise made available for fixed consideration was treated as agricultural income under the Income-tax Act, 1961 because the assessee carried on actual cultivation and the arrangement was akin to landlord and tenant. The concurrent factual findings were neither perverse nor arbitrary, so no legal error was shown to justify interference under section 260A. On those facts, the classification as agricultural income was upheld and no substantial question of law arose.

---

---

Issues: Whether the income derived from cultivation of sugarcane on land belonging to the Maharashtra State Farming Corporation and used by the assessee on payment of fixed consideration was agricultural income within the meaning of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether any substantial question of law arose warranting interference under section 260A.

Analysis: The authorities below recorded concurrent findings that the assessee carried on cultivation of sugarcane on land owned by the Maharashtra State Farming Corporation, that the arrangement between the parties was akin to that of landlord and tenant, and that the assessee paid fixed consideration for use of the land. On those facts, the income earned from such cultivation was treated as agricultural income. The findings were not shown to be perverse or arbitrary, and the challenge in appeal did not disclose any legal error requiring interference.

Conclusion: The income was correctly held to be agricultural income, and no substantial question of law arose.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings of fact that income is derived from actual agricultural cultivation, when not shown to be perverse, do not give rise to a substantial question of law under section 260A.

---