2001 PLP 2548 (PTD)
BISON FIELD A ESTATE Versus INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER and others
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2548 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Bench Members | S. P. Bharucha and D. P. Mohapatra, JJ |
| Parties | BISON FIELD A ESTATE Versus INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER and others |
| Primary Law | Income‑tax‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2548 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income‑tax‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2548 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of India bench comprising: S. P. Bharucha and D. P. Mohapatra, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2548 (PTD) (BISON FIELD A ESTATE Versus INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- T.L.V. Iyer, Senior Advocate (Rajiv Garg, Ms. Manish Gupta and N.D. Garg, Advocates with him) for Appellant.
- G. Prakash, Advocate for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order, dated November 14, 1996, of the Kerala High Court in Tax Rev. Cases Nos.3 and 35 of 1994). ‑‑‑‑Income‑‑‑‑Accrual ‑Mercantile system of accounting‑‑‑Coffee sold to Coffee Board through pooling agents‑‑‑Income estimated in year of sale on basis of instruction given by pooling agent‑‑‑Excess received in subsequent year‑‑‑Also accrues in year of sale ‑‑‑Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950. The coffee obtained by the assessee, a planter of coffee, was pooled with coffee curers, who effected payment in instalments, depending upon the payment declared by the Coffee Board. The assessee had maintained its accounts following the mercantile system, and had credited in its account for the year of sale a reasonable estimate of the value of the coffee on the basis given by the pooling agent.. Any amounts received for the coffee in subsequent years in excess of the estimated value was treated by the assessee as income of the subsequent year. in which it was received. But the income. tax authority took the view that the entire consideration for the coffee pooled in each year accrued in the year of sale and had to be assessed to tact in that year: This was confirmed by the Tribunal; and the High Court (see (1998) 233 ITR 656), in revision, following Commissioner of Agricultural Income‑tax v. Raja Rajeswari Narikelly Estate (1993) 199 ITR 383 (Ker.), affirmed the decision of the Tribunal holding that the amount received at a subsequent point of time should also be treated as part of the assessee's income of the year in which the sale was effected. The assessee preferred appeals to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals agreeing with the decision of the High Court. Bisonfield A Estate v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Special) (1998) 233 ITR 656 affirmed. Commissioner of Agricultural Income‑tax v. Raja Rajeswari Narikelly Estate (1993) 199 ITR 383 (Ker.) impliedly approved.
Judgment & Decree
(Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order, dated November 14, 1996, of the Kerala High Court in Tax Rev. Cases Nos.3 and 35 of 1994). ‑‑‑‑Income‑‑‑‑Accrual ‑Mercantile system of accounting‑‑‑Coffee sold to Coffee Board through pooling agents‑‑‑Income estimated in year of sale on basis of instruction given by pooling agent‑‑‑Excess received in subsequent year‑‑‑Also accrues in year of sale ‑‑‑Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950. The coffee obtained by the assessee, a planter of coffee, was pooled with coffee curers, who effected payment in instalments, depending upon the payment declared by the Coffee Board. The assessee had maintained its accounts following the mercantile system, and had credited in its account for the year of sale a reasonable estimate of the value of the coffee on the basis given by the pooling agent.. Any amounts received for the coffee in subsequent years in excess of the estimated value was treated by the assessee as income of the subsequent year. in which it was received. But the income. tax authority took the view that the entire consideration for the coffee pooled in each year accrued in the year of sale and had to be assessed to tact in that year: This was confirmed by the Tribunal; and the High Court (see (1998) 233 ITR 656), in revision, following Commissioner of Agricultural Income‑tax v. Raja Rajeswari Narikelly Estate (1993) 199 ITR 383 (Ker.), affirmed the decision of the Tribunal holding that the amount received at a subsequent point of time should also be treated as part of the assessee's income of the year in which the sale was effected. The assessee preferred appeals to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals agreeing with the decision of the High Court. Bisonfield A Estate v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Special) (1998) 233 ITR 656 affirmed. Commissioner of Agricultural Income‑tax v. Raja Rajeswari Narikelly Estate (1993) 199 ITR 383 (Ker.) impliedly approved. T.L.V. Iyer, Senior Advocate (Rajiv Garg, Ms. Manish Gupta and N.D. Garg, Advocates with him) for Appellant. G. Prakash, Advocate for Respondents. We find no merit in the arguments on behalf of the assessee. The matter is squarely covered by the decision that was followed by the High Court in the order under appeal, namely, the decision in Commissioner of Agriculture of Income‑tax v. Raja Rajeswari Narikelly Estate (1993) 199 ITR 383 (Ker.). We agree with that decision and dismiss these appeals with costs. M.B.A./955/FC Appeal dismissed.