Supreme Court affirms Karnataka income assessment rule, emphasizes expenditure specifics

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision in assessing income under rule 7 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Rules. The method of apportioning gross receipts between agricultural and non-agricultural operations was deemed reasonable, with the Court emphasizing the need for expenditures to be clearly related to specific activities. The Court endorsed the relevance of the Madras High Court judgment in CIT v. Manjushree Plantations Ltd., leading to the dismissal of civil appeals without costs.

---

---

The High Court's orders were upheld. Under rule 7 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Rules the Agricultural Income-tax Officer properly assessed the assessee's income "to the best of his judgment" by apportioning gross receipts between agricultural and non-agricultural operations. That method was not "perverse" and therefore did not warrant interference. The court noted that, had the assessee furnished all relevant particulars, apportionment might have been made "on the basis of the proportion between the net income from these sources," but absence of such particulars justified the assessment method adopted. The High Court relied on the Madras High Court in CIT v. Manjushree Plantations Ltd. to hold that "(T)herefore, any expenditure that would be incurred should be definitely relatable to the agricultural activity or to another activity which is not agricultural. When such bifurcation is not permissible, some reasonable test will have to be adopted as indicated in Manjushree Plantations Ltd.'s case." Civil appeals dismissed; no order as to costs.

---