TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 951
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Ganesan (Judicial Member).- The Revenue filed the appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kozhikode dated August 7, 2013 for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee filed the cross-objection against the very same order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Therefore, we heard the appeal and the cross-objection together and dispose of the same by this commo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xation as capital gain. On appeal by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found that in respect of five other assessees the Assessing Officer has taken 30 per cent. of the sale proceeds of mahogany trees as income from capital gain. By following the abovesaid precedent the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) found that in this case also the Assessing Officer shall treat 30 perc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding rubber trees were sold by the assessee no capital gain arose or accrued on such transaction. The Calcutta High Court, in CIT v. Suman Tea and Plywood Industries P. Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 34 (Cal), has also considered an identical issue elaborately and after referring to the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Travancore Tea Estates Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1974] 93 ITR 314 (Ker) and the judgment of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....However, in this case, the assessee is not challenging the estimation of capital gains at 30 per cent. of the sale proceeds. The assessee's claim is that the entire income is agricultural income. This claim of the assessee as agricultural income cannot be correct in view of the judgments of the apex court referred to above. Since the assessee is not challenging the treatment of 30 per cent. of....