Case: Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax Vs. Emerald Valley Estates

The High Court answered in favour of the assessee the following question"(i) Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the expenditure incurred by theby way ofand 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. IT Act, 1950 ?"did so in relation to the asst. yr.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. 106/1991The said decision of the High Court was impugned before this Court and it was set asideCommr. of Agrl. IT vs. Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. 2000 SC 719. It seems appropriate, in the circumstances, that the order impugned in this appeal be set aside and the matter IT Ref. No. 162/1986 (Agrl.) remanded to the High Court for being heard and considered afresh

Court's reasoning:
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