1973 (3) TMI 25

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 9,293.14, constituted agricultural income liable to tax. The Tribunal differing from the revenue and purporting to follow Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax v. Kailas Rubber & Company Ltd. held that the sale proceeds did not constitute such income, but they should be treated as capital. There is no evidence one way or the other how the blue-gum trees came into existence on the dry land of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... without an assesee having planted a mango tree, it might have spontaneously grown and might be yielding income. In that case, no one will say that the income is not agricultural in character. So too, in the case of cocoanut trees planted for raising cocoanuts, the proceeds of such trees cut may not be treated as revenue income either because they had been originally planted or because the purpose....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat blue-gum trees are not planted for purposes of getting timber for the timber value from such trees is very negligible. The governing purpose of planting blue-gum trees is to derive eucalyptus oil from their leaves by a process of manufacture. No light is forthcoming as to why the assessee cut the trees. But the Tribunal from the passage extracted by us assumed that they were cut because they w....