HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
V. Venugopala Varma Rajah v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala
Civil Appeal No. 810 of 1967
[1970] 2 SCR 547 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: section 4(3)(viii) discussed
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by J. C. Shah, J.; interim order 13 February and final judgment 24 September 1969. · J. C. Shah, J. · V. Ramaswami, J. · A. N. Grover, J.
Assessment years: 1959-60
01 · Facts of the case
The assessee's father received Rs.75,000 for cutting trees on 500 acres. After an initial remand for clearer facts, the Tribunal reported that “clear felling” left six-inch stumps with bark intact; the trees were spontaneous growth and the stumps could regenerate (SCR pp.547-551; PDF pp.1-5).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Receipts from leaves, fruit, branches or regenerating trunks were income-like because the enduring source remained. Cutting the trunk while leaving living stumps did not necessarily realize part of the landowner's capital. The Court expressly left open treatment where trees and roots are removed once and for all (SCR pp.551-553; PDF pp.5-7).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
The Court held the receipt revenue and dismissed the assessee's appeal with costs (SCR p.553; PDF p.7).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of Revenue: the regenerating clear-felling receipt was taxable income on the proved facts (SCR pp.552-553; PDF pp.6-7).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: determine whether the transaction exhausts the income-producing source or harvests a renewable yield. Regeneration was decisive here; modern statutory forestry, agricultural-income and capital-gains rules require separate checks (based on SCR pp.551-553; PDF pp.5-7).
Source: Primary judgment: review point
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 7-page SCR source asset read in page-preserving text and visually inspected; adjacent-report boundaries were checked.
- Exact source bytes, SHA-256 and seven-page count match catalogue asset 1970_2_547_553; every page was read and visually inspected.
- The source verifies the stated case identity, bench, statutory issue and operative order.
- No exact source-hash, asset-ID, SCR-citation, docket or same-judgment match was found in the published corpus or reviewed archive.
Statutory scope
The decision applies historical income characterization under the repealed 1922 Act; current agricultural-income, forestry and capital-gains provisions were not checked.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-11. Later judicial treatment and current statutory applicability have not been comprehensively checked; no current-law or citator clearance is represented.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Coverage, AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
Selected Supreme Court income-tax decisions and procedural orders checked against their identified sources. This collection is not exhaustive. The research catalogue has 2,569 indexed PDF assets, including alternate copies and incidental matches; that is not a count of unique or reviewed judgments. Historical and unreported coverage remains open.
AI-assisted research checked against the identified source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on facts, assessment year, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless a note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.
The official 1961–2025 structural correspondence does not establish that a precedent applies under the new Act. Verify the enacted wording, commencement and transitional provisions separately.