Remuneration for managing agricultural property is not agricultural income merely because the property itself is agricultural.

Remuneration received for managing agricultural property was held not to be agricultural income merely because the underlying asset was agricultural in character. The decisive test was the character of the receipt under the Act: income derived from management services is distinct from income derived directly from agriculture. On that basis, the sum received by the karta as managing partner could not be assessed as agricultural income in the hands of the Hindu undivided family, and the issue was answered against the claim for exemption.

---

---

Issues: Whether remuneration of Rs. 3,600 received by the karta as managing partner constituted agricultural income assessable in the hands of the Hindu undivided family.

Analysis: The amount admittedly belonged to the Hindu undivided family, but the decisive question was its character. On the definition of agricultural income in the Act, remuneration paid for managing agricultural property does not fall within agricultural income. The conclusion was supported by established judicial authority distinguishing such remuneration from income derived from agriculture itself.

Conclusion: The sum of Rs. 3,600 was not agricultural income and could not be included as such in the assessment. The question was answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Remuneration received for managing agricultural property is not agricultural income merely because the underlying property is agricultural in character.

---