2001 INSC 0195
                                    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                          Commissioner of Agrl. Income-Tax, Trivandrum

                                                      Vs.

                                         Emerald Valley Estates"

                                           C.A.No.4650 of 1993

                    (S. P. Bharucha, N. Santosh Hegde and Y. K. Sabharwal JJ.)

                                                 21.02.2001

                                                   ORDER

1. The High Court answered in favour of the assessee the following question:

        "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in
        holding that the expenditure incurred by the applicant-Company by way of Court-fee
        and Advocate fee in filing a suit against the Government of Kerala is not an
        expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of deriving agricultural
        income and, therefore, is not an allowable expenditure under S. 5(j) of the Agrl.
        Income-tax Act, 1950?"

        It did so in relation to the Assessment Year 1981-82. It accepted the contention on
        behalf of the learned counsel for the assessee that the case was covered by the
        decision of a Full Bench of that High Court in T.R.C. No. 106/1991.

2. The said decision of the High Court was impugned before this Court and it was set aside.
Commr. of Agrl. Income-tax, Kerala v. Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd., Kottayam1. It
seems appropriate, in the circumstances, that the order impugned in this appeal be set aside
and the matter (I.T.R. No. 162/1986 (Agrl.)) remanded to the High Court for being heard and
considered afresh.

3. We note that although learned counsel for the assessee before the High Court had placed
reliance upon the aforesaid Full Bench decision, learned counsel for the assessee before us
submits that that decision had no application. The High Court will consider the matter afresh
in the light of the decision of this Court reversing the Full Bench decision but all available
contentions shall be open to both parties.

4. The appeal is accordingly allowed.

5. No order as to costs.

1  SpotLaw
C.A. Nos. 4916-17/1993 :

6. What is impugned in these appeals is only an order of remand. We see no reason to
interfere. No doubt, on remand, the matter will be reconsidered in the light of the law as it
stands today.

7. The appeals are dismissed.

8. No order as to costs.

Appeals dismissed.

1(2001) 1 SCC 207

2  SpotLaw