Kerala High Court excludes agricultural income from the purview of the Central Act
It rules that deduction is envisaged for the purpose of ascertaining the net income of the assessee under different heads
Kerala High Court excludes agricultural income from the purview of the Central Act It rules that deduction is envisaged for the purpose of ascertaining the net income of the assessee under different heads The Kerala High Court has held that agricultural income excluded from the purview of the Central Act, is not a part of the computation of income under the Act of Parliament or Central...
Kerala High Court excludes agricultural income from the purview of the Central Act
It rules that deduction is envisaged for the purpose of ascertaining the net income of the assessee under different heads
The Kerala High Court has held that agricultural income excluded from the purview of the Central Act, is not a part of the computation of income under the Act of Parliament or Central Act.
The division bench of Justice S V Bhatti and Justice Viju Abraham ruled that the deduction was envisaged for the purpose of ascertaining the net income of the assessee under different heads.
The assessee, Oil Palm India, is a company with the shareholding held by the Government of India and the Government of Kerala. The appellant undertakes Oil Palm cultivation and manufacture and production of crude palm oil. The assessee, till the assessment year 2005-2006, had been paying returns under the 1991 Act on 100 per cent income derived from agriculture and business income from the manufacture/production of crude palm oil.
A controversy arose between the assessee and the revenue, with the latter implementing the 1962 Central Income Tax Rules, providing for the assessment of income, which is partly agricultural and partly business-related.
The assessing officer rejected the deduction claimed by the assessee on the ground that he had paid the tax under the 1991 Act on the entire income, whereas a part of the income alone is amenable to the Agricultural Income Tax Act. The agricultural income is excluded from the purview of the Central Act; therefore, it is not a part of the computation of income.
The AO mentioned that the tax paid for the apportioned agricultural income could not overlap into the business income as tax payable by the assessee for earning business income. No reported judgment on this aspect of the matter was brought to his notice. Therefore, the argument that the tax paid under the 1991 Act, ensured deduction was unsustainable and accordingly rejected.