TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (9) TMI 49
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law for the decision of this court : 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in law and in fact in holding that rubber replantation subsidy was given for agricultural operations and the same is to be treated as agricultural income and is not the decision a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the subsidy received by the assessee is not income liable to tax under the Income-tax Act. The Revenue filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and contended that the subsidy received by the assessee for rubber replantation is revenue receipt and fortified the said plea by reference to the decision of this court in CIT v. Malayalam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 168 ITR 63 (Ker)), rubber replantation subsidy was considered as a revenue, receipt and liable to be brought to tax under the Income-tax Act. The Appellate Tribunal approached the question from a different angle, which was put forward for the first time and held that since the subsidy was given for agricultural operations, it was treated as agricultural income. We do not propose to deal with that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Full Bench decision of this court in Ruby Rubber Works Ltd.'s case [1989] 178 ITR 181. The only other question is regarding the estimate of the capital gains. The Income-tax Officer estimated the capital gains at 50% of the sale value. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) reduced it to 30% of the sale value. He has given cogent reasons therefor. The Appellate Tribunal has concurred with the....