TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (12) TMI 26
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sallowing certain expenses finally determined the net assessable income at Rs. 32,22,175. On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal in part and while rejecting the petitioner's claim for deduction of expenditure pertaining to purchase of drums, he remanded the issue to the assessing authority to determine the value of the raw rubber as according to him a sum of Rs. 2,13,84,603 represented sale value of chemically processed rubber which was inclusive of the cost of chemical and cost of empty drums. The petitioner-company carried the matter on further appeal to the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, objecting to the disallowance of expenditure such as wages, common expenses, etc., and also questioning the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....having 1,320 acres of rubber estate and the company could not get the required quantity of natural manure from the livestock, the petitioner company maintained and they further found that there was no chance of utilizing the natural manure to the rubber crop. For rubber crops chemical manure only is being used not only in the petitioner's estate but also in several other rubber estates and further found that the natural manure from livestock was used for the non-plantation crops in the estate. The further contention of the petitioner that the milk from the livestock was used in the workers canteen has also been rejected on the ground that in the workers canteen coffee and tea were sold for a price to the workers and the canteen was run wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es incurred for the staff at the head office at Madras. During the previous assessment year 1992-93 the total expenses for the head office at Madras were Rs. 21,05,970 and out of that total amount, the petitioner company themselves claimed 32.5% of the expenses towards the expenses incurred for the petitioner company. The Assessing Officer followed the very same ratio for the present assessment year also. That has been confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Appellate Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as in the assessment year in question, there was no income from the investment company, the entire expenses expended for the head office at Madras have to be allowed from and out of the total income of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad) and Consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [2001] 248 ITR 432 (SC) were all rendered in respect of the assessees, who were liable to be assessed under the Agricultural Income-tax Act as well as the Central Income-tax Act in respect of the income derived from tea and coffee plantation. It is an admitted fact that the expenses had been incurred for the head office at Madras in respect of both the companies. Whether the investment company for which the expenses incurred earned profit or not is not a matter for consideration in apportioning the expenses incurred for that company also. In the absence of any materials adduced by the petitioner to show that the expenses incurred towards the petitioner company are more in proportion th....