1986 PLP 703 (PTD)
DEBPARA TEA CO. LTD., JALPAIGURI Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, WEST BENGAL‑XIII, CALCUTTA
| Citation | 1986 PLP 703 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Calcutta High Court (India) |
| Bench Members | Sabyasachi Mukharji and Suhas Chandra Sen, JJ |
| Parties | DEBPARA TEA CO. LTD., JALPAIGURI Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, WEST BENGAL‑XIII, CALCUTTA |
| Primary Law | Income‑tax‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 703 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income‑tax‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 703 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Calcutta High Court (India) bench comprising: Sabyasachi Mukharji and Suhas Chandra Sen, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 703 (PTD) (DEBPARA TEA CO. LTD., JALPAIGURI Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, WEST BENGAL‑XIII, CALCUTTA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Assessee‑lessee of Government land‑‑Earlier tea plantation on pare of land abandoned by assessee‑‑Expenditure on replantation on another part of land is not allowable as revenue expenditure‑ ‑Development allowance can be allowed. M.N. Banerjee for the Assessee. S.K. Maha for the Revenue. .
Judgment & Decree
MUKHARJI, J‑‑In --‑view of the facts found by the Tribunal as recorded in the statement of the case that the assessee was a lessee having taken: ease of certain land from the Government of West Bengal on the area of 33 Acres there was tea plantation earlier which was abandoned and during the accounting period relevant to the assessment year the assessee replanted tea plants on a virgin soil of another area of 33 Acres, in our opinion the expenditure of Rupees 48, 435 incurred on such plantation could not have been allowed as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal has, however, directed that the development allowance in respect of the replacement of tea bushes should be allowed and further directed the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to take that point into consideration. If that is so, in our opinion, the Tribunal arrived at the correct decision and the question should be answered in that affirmative and in favour of the revenue.
2. Parties will pay and bear their own costs: SEN, J.‑‑I agree. M. B. A. Question answered in affirmative.