TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (9) TMI 98
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndre having interest in the land in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Shantabai v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 532 and the fact that the applicant itself did not have to carry basic agricultural operations personally and also that the extraction of latex is an agricultural operation and the income derived was not agricultural income ?" 2 The assessee is a registered firm trading in timber. During the relevant assessment year, during the course of its business, the assessee acquired from a third party the right to cut the standing timber and take away the wood. There was some time lag between the date of the agreement and the date of felling of the trees. The assessee derived an income of Rs. 60,790 by way of sale of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Income-tax and the Commissioner of Income-tax ruled that the same cannot be treated as an agricultural income. The Tribunal, by a detailed order has chosen to accept the findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax. Let us see as to whether the said order is acceptable or not in the case on hand. The material on record would reveal that the assessee acquired the right to enter the land and cut the standing rubber trees and carry away the wood for the purpose of its own business. There was some delay in obtaining necessary permission from the authorities. The felling operations got delayed. During that interval period, the assessee gave a sub-licence to another to tap and take latex from the standing rubber trees. The assessee derived incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner. 10. In Cherian Dominic v. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax [1975] 98 ITR 283, the Kerala High Court again notices the income from slaughter-tapping of rubber trees. After noticing, the court ruled that the assessee carried on agricultural operations and hence the income was agricultural income. That was also a case that arose in terms of the Agricultural 11. The petitioner relies on Kalpaka Rubber Plantations P. Ltd. [1993] 202 ITR 450 (Ker). All the above judgments, if read carefully would show that those judgments were rendered under different circumstances. Those judgments cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. On the other hand, the apex court has considered agricultural income in terms of the Indian Inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....skill and labour upon the land itself. The court further ruled that (headnote) "The mere performance of these subsequent operations on the products of the land, where such products have not been raised on the land by the performance of the basic operations would not be enough to characterise them as agricultural operations ; in order to invest them with the character of agricultural operations these subsequent operations must necessarily be in conjunction with and in continuation of the basic operations which are the effective cause of the products being raised from the land. The subsequent operations divorced from the basic operations cannot constitute by themselves agricultural operations. Only if this integrated activity which cons....