A. K. T. K. M. VISHNUDATTA ANDHARJANAM REPRESENTED BY. D. vs. NAMBUDIRIPAD, DESAMENGALAM. versus COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAXT, TRIVANDRUM
What did the Supreme Court hold?
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the receipt from the sale of teak trees was capital in nature and exempt from agricultural income-tax. The Court reasoned that the trees were cut and removed completely with their roots for the purpose of planting rubber, meaning there was no possibility of further regeneration or recurring income. This sale affected the capital structure of the assessee, as opposed to generating a revenue receipt. The Court referred to the Privy Council's test in The Commissioner of Income tax, Bengal v. Messrs. Shah Wallace and Company, stating that income connotes a periodical monetary return with some regularity. The Court also noted that profit motive alone is not decisive in determining whether a receipt is capital or income; an accretion to capital does not become taxable income merely because it was acquired with the hope of profit. The Court found that by removing the roots, the source of potential future growth was eliminated, thus impacting the capital. The first question was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee. The second question regarding the deductibility of expenses became unnecessary.
What were the facts?
The assessee, A. K. T. K. M. Vishnudatta Andharjanam, was assessed for agricultural income for the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer included amounts realized from the sale of teak trees, planted in 1946-47 and removed with roots during the assessment years, in the assessee's income. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal confirmed this. The Kerala High Court, on a reference under Section 60(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, ruled against the assessee, holding the receipts to be agricultural income. The dispute concerns the nature of the sale receipts from these teak trees, amounting to Rs. 43,250.00 in 1963-64 and Rs. 33,250.00 in 1964-65.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the receipt from the sale of teak trees, removed for the purpose of planting rubber, is capital in nature and exempt from agricultural income-tax, as per the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950. Assessee's contentions: The sale of teak trees, removed entirely with their roots to facilitate the planting of rubber, constitutes a realization of capital and not revenue. The removal of roots eliminates any possibility of regeneration or recurring income from these trees, thus affecting the capital structure. Revenue's contentions: The revenue argued that the sale of teak trees constituted agricultural income. The High Court found that the profit motive of the assessee in planting the trees was a significant factor, and that the receipts were agricultural income. The revenue also contended that expenses incurred in prior years for obtaining this income should be allowable as a deduction if the receipts were income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 60(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
535 A A. K. T. K. M. VISHNUDATTA ANDHARJANAM REPRE· SENTED BY. D. V. NAMBUDIRIPAD, DESAMENGALAM. B c ID F G n: V, COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCO'ME TAX, TRIVANDRUM Ma.v 5, 1970 [J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J Jnco1ne or capital-Teak trees removed by their roots _and solc..1.-Sale receipts whether income or capital.
In the course of the appellant"s assessment under the Kerala Agri,,uJ. tural Income-tax Act, 1950, for the years 1963·64 and 1964-65, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer included in the appellant's income a.11 amount realised from the sale of teak trees which had been planted in the year 1946-47 and were removed from the appellant's land and sold dur- mg the assessment years. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Tribunal confirmed the assessment.
On a reference under s. 60(1) of the question whether the receipt from the sale df teak trees was capital in nature and exempted from agricultural income-tax, the High Court found against the appellant.
On appeal to this Court : HELD : Allowing the appeal, The form of the question referred to the High Court itself showed that the trees were cut and completely r
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- A.Merchy Clara vs. The Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise (Appeals)Madras · 13 Oct 2026
- Nallathambi Thangaraj vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IMadras · 13 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S. Hira Films PVT. LTD. vs. M/S. Prasad Film Labs (Mumbai) Private LimitedBombay · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Jung Bahadur Singh, Through Its Proprietor, Jang Bahadur Singh vs. The Union Of INDIA, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of RevenueJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026
