https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8151 Expenditure incurred after re-plantation for filling up vacancies or dried-up plants in the planted area was not treated as re-planting expenditure under the acreage-based first proviso to section 5(g) of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. The court reasoned that the proviso measured re-planting expenditure by the acreage in which re-planting was effected, which did not logically cover later filling-up costs. Such expenditure was instead referable to section 5(e) as expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the land. The claim to treatment under section 5(g) therefore failed, and the finding was against the assessee. en-us Tue, 30 Dec 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8151 Expenditure incurred after re-plantation for filling up vacancies or dried-up plants in the planted area was not treated as re-planting expenditure under the acreage-based first proviso to section 5(g) of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. The court reasoned that the proviso measured re-planting expenditure by the acreage in which re-planting was effected, which did not logically cover later filling-up costs. Such expenditure was instead referable to section 5(e) as expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the land. The claim to treatment under section 5(g) therefore failed, and the finding was against the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 30 Dec 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8151