TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Sugarcane Post-Lease Sales Qualify as Agricultural Income: Court Grants Earned Income Relief</h1> <h3>AS Karachi And Others Versus Commissioner Of Agricultural Income-Tax And Another</h3> AS Karachi And Others Versus Commissioner Of Agricultural Income-Tax And Another - [1978] 115 ITR 629, 1978 CTR 214 Issues:1. Interpretation of 'agricultural income' under the Karnataka Agrl. I.T. Act, 1957.2. Tax liability on income derived from the sale of sugarcane.3. Application of earned income relief under s. 13 of the Act.Analysis:The judgment dealt with three petitions arising from orders under s. 35 of the Karnataka Agrl. I.T. Act, 1957. The petitioners, sons of the landowner, claimed exemption from tax on income from selling sugarcane grown on the land allotted to them post a lease. The Agrl. ITO included the income in the assessable income, but the Dy. Commr. of Agrl. I.T. allowed the appeals, considering the income as not agricultural. However, the Commr. of Agrl. I.T. reversed the decision, leading to the revision petitions.The court analyzed the definition of 'agricultural income' under s. 2(1)(a)(2)(i) of the Act, emphasizing the need for agricultural land, operations, and income from commercial crops. It noted that the petitioners conducted operations post-lease to derive income, meeting the criteria. The court rejected the comparison to a Madras High Court case, highlighting the petitioners' ownership interest and post-lease operations as distinguishing factors.Another argument was the compensation for harvesting sugarcane, but the court found it irrelevant as post-lease operations were necessary for income. The court upheld the Commr. of Agrl. I.T.'s view that the income qualified as agricultural income under the Act, dismissing the petitions.In one petition, the court addressed earned income relief under s. 13 of the Act, granting relief as post-lease operations were conducted, entitling the petitioners to exemption from a portion of their agricultural income. The court modified the orders to reflect the relief granted, dismissing the petitions with costs.Overall, the judgment clarified the interpretation of 'agricultural income,' upheld tax liability on sugarcane sale income, and allowed earned income relief based on post-lease operations, providing a comprehensive analysis of the issues raised in the petitions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
