https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49627 The Supreme Court held that the income from the sale of trees in the respondent's forests was not agricultural income and therefore taxable. The burden of proof for claiming exemption rested with the respondent, who failed to establish that the trees were planted by the estate authorities. The Court emphasized that high maintenance costs did not prove plantation activities. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's decision, and the respondent was directed to pay the costs of the appellant. en-us Tue, 14 Oct 1958 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Sep 2014 10:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49627 The Supreme Court held that the income from the sale of trees in the respondent's forests was not agricultural income and therefore taxable. The burden of proof for claiming exemption rested with the respondent, who failed to establish that the trees were planted by the estate authorities. The Court emphasized that high maintenance costs did not prove plantation activities. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's decision, and the respondent was directed to pay the costs of the appellant. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 14 Oct 1958 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49627