Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore Vs. H.B. Van Ingen - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberI.T.R.N. No. 10 of 1963
Judge
Reported in[1964]53ITR681(KAR); [1964]53ITR681(Karn)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1922 - Sections 4
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
RespondentH.B. Van Ingen
Appellant AdvocateS.R. Rajasekharamurthy, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateM.K. Viswanath, Adv.
Excerpt:
- karnataka land reforms act, 1961.[k.a. no. 10/1962]. section 21 (1) & form 7a: [anand byrareddy, j] right of a beneficiary under a will claim for occupancy rights by virtue of the bequest under the will grant of occupancy rights challenge to finding of the tribunal that petitioner was not a full brother of the deceased tenant transfer of agricultural land with occupancy rights in favour of heirs - held, the object of section 21 being to confine the rights of tenancy only to stranger is barred. finding of the tribunal was upheld. .....estate consisted of trees. these trees were sold.' 6. it is not the finding of the tribunal that the trees sold had spontaneously grown after the purchase was made; nor is there any finding that the trees sold were immature on the date of the purchases and that they became mature on the date of sale. from the finding of the tribunal it is seen that the very trees purchased as part of the purchase transaction were sold. on the basis of this finding, the only conclusion possible is that the price realised by the sale of those trees is a capital and not a revenue receipt. 7. our answer to the question of law referred is that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of rs. 5,782 is a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt. no costs. 8. reference answered accordingly.
Judgment:

Hedge, J.

1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The question of law referred is :

'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 5,872 is a capital or a revenue receipt ?'

2. The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Commissioner came to the conclusion that the same is 'income' whereas the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that it is 'capital'.

3. The materials facts of the case are as follows :

4. The assessee purchased a coffee estate on October 9, 1934, for a sum of Rs. 22,000. Even on the date of the purchase, coffee plants had been planted in a portion of that estate and the rest jungle. Year after year, he cleared portions of the jungle for the purpose of planting coffee. The cleared jungle was sole by him. The question for decision is whether the price realised by him by the sale of the trees is 'income'.

5. The facts found by the Tribunal which finding is binding on us are as follows :

'The assessee did not either inherit or purchase a forest. He only parted with his capital to acquire a coffee estate; part of that case estate consisted of trees. These trees were sold.'

6. It is not the finding of the Tribunal that the trees sold had spontaneously grown after the purchase was made; nor is there any finding that the trees sold were immature on the date of the purchases and that they became mature on the date of sale. From the finding of the Tribunal it is seen that the very trees purchased as part of the purchase transaction were sold. On the basis of this finding, the only conclusion possible is that the price realised by the sale of those trees is a capital and not a revenue receipt.

7. Our answer to the question of law referred is that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 5,782 is a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt. No costs.

8. Reference answered accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //