https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17823 Subsidy received from the Rubber Board under the Replanting Subsidy Scheme, 1970, was treated as a capital receipt because the scheme was designed to encourage replantation of rubber trees and increase production. The fact that the subsidy was quantified per hectare and paid in instalments to ensure use for replantation supported its capital character. Any incidental use for maintenance expenses did not alter the nature of the receipt, since maintenance was subordinate to the main object of replantation. Earlier decisions on similar rubber replanting subsidies and Supreme Court guidance distinguishing reimbursements of maintenance expenditure reinforced the view that the subsidy was not revenue income and was not taxable as agricultural income. en-us Thu, 17 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:43:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17823 Subsidy received from the Rubber Board under the Replanting Subsidy Scheme, 1970, was treated as a capital receipt because the scheme was designed to encourage replantation of rubber trees and increase production. The fact that the subsidy was quantified per hectare and paid in instalments to ensure use for replantation supported its capital character. Any incidental use for maintenance expenses did not alter the nature of the receipt, since maintenance was subordinate to the main object of replantation. Earlier decisions on similar rubber replanting subsidies and Supreme Court guidance distinguishing reimbursements of maintenance expenditure reinforced the view that the subsidy was not revenue income and was not taxable as agricultural income. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 17 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17823