Judgment :- 1. The assessee in all these four references is the Malankara Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd., Kottayam and the common contention as stated in the orders of reference is that the Tribunal "failed to note the fundamental differences in character between the first year's expenditure in planting which is capital expenditure and subsequent years' expenditure on the maintenance of rubber already planted but which is revenue expenditure and has wrongly held that the latter is also not allowable in calculating the assessable income". 2. Reference No. 4 relates to the assessment year 1119 (accounting year ending 31st March 1943), reference No.1 to the assessment year 1120 (accounting year ending 31st March 1944), reference No. 3 to the assessment year 1121 (accounting year ending 31st March 1945) and reference No. 2 to the assessment year 1122 (accounting year ending 31st March 1946). The enactment concerning the assessment years 1119 to 1121 inclusive, is the Travancore Agricultural Income-Tax Act, 1119 (Act I of 1119), and that concerning the assessment year 1122 is the Travancore Income-Tax Act 1121 (Act XXIII of 1121). Consequently the question referred in reference Nos. 4,1 and 3 is: "Whether under the Travancore Agricultural Income-Tax Act I of 1119 in calculating the assessable income of an estate containing both mature yielding rubber plantations and also immature rubber plantations which have not come into bearing the annual expenses incurred for upkeep or maintenance of such immature rubber plantations (i.e., expenses incurred after completion of planting) are allowable"; and in reference No. 2: "Whether under the Travancore Income-Tax Act XXIII of 1121 in calculating the assessable income of an estate containing both mature yielding rubber plantations and also immature rubber plantations which have not come into bearing, the annual expenses incurred for upkeep or maintenance of such immature rubber plantations (i.e., expenses incurred after completion of planting) are allowable". The answer to the questions depends entirely on whether the deduction claimed will come within the ambit of S.7(2)(c) of Act I of 1119 and S.14(3)(c) of Act XXIII of 1121: "the expenses of cultivating the crop from which such agricultural income is derived, of transporting such crop to market, including the maintenance of agricultural implements and cattle required for the purpose of such cultivation and for transporting the crop to market". In The Malayan Plantations Ltd., Quilon v. The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Trivandrum, 1952 K.L.T. 453, it was held: "Expenses for cultivating the crop will not include the expenditure for replantation of a defined portion as is the case here". and the judgment went on to state: "We may add that in our view the case is one that falls to be decided under the terms of the statute and our answers are based thereon. We had not to consider nor have we considered the question untrammeled by statutory provisions and on general principles appertaining to the method of computation of income or the permissible deductions from a business point of view which would have been necessary had there been no detailed statutory provisions governing the case". Earlier in the judgment the provisions of the two enactments were dealt with as follows: "Act I/1119 (Travancore) imposed tax on agricultural income which had thereto before been exempt therefrom. It was an Act appertaining exclusively to agricultural income. Subsequently a consolidated Act XXIII of 1121 was passed making separate provisions for tax on agricultural as also on non-agricultural income. The provisions relating to agricultural income are materially different from those relating to non-agricultural income. Whereas in the case of non-agricultural income the method of computation of income, profits and gains mentioned in the charging section is is not statutorily laid down, in the case of agricultural income, Act I/1119 as also that part of Act XXIII/1121 appertaining to agricultural income contain detailed provisions as to how agricultural income subject to the impost of tax is to be ascertained". 3. We find it equally impossible to include within the expression "the expenses of cultivating the crop from which such agricultural income is derived" the expenses incurred by the assessee on the maintenance of rubber plaints which were immature and had not begun to yield. "Such agricultural income" in the section must mean agricultural income from which the deduction is claimed and "the expenses of cultivating the crop" the expenditure on the mature rubber trees from which that income was earned. That the word "crop" does not mean the plantation as a whole or an adventure in agriculture but the produce itself that yielded the income is clear from the fact that the expenses of transporting that crop to market is also enumerated as a permissible deduction under the provision concerned. 4. That the word "crop" does not mean the plantation as a whole or an adventure in agriculture but the produce itself that yielded the income is clear from the fact that the expenses of transporting that crop to market is also enumerated as a permissible deduction under the provision concerned. 4. The only contention on behalf of the assessee was that S.10(2)(ix) of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922 (Central Act XI of 1922), as it stood prior to the Indian Income-Tax (Amendment) Act, 1939 (Central Act, VII of 1939) is in pari materia with the section we have to construe and that the decisions based thereon will support the claim made by the assessee. We cannot agree. S.10(1) of the Act as it stood prior to the amendment provided: "The tax shall be payable by an assessee under the head "Business" in respect of the profits or gains of any business carried on by him" and (10)(2)(ix): Such profits or gains shall be computed after making the following allowance namely: (ix) any expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure (incurred solely for the purposes of earning such profits or gains". In other words under that section all expenditure other than of a capital nature incurred solely for the purpose of earning the profits or gains of the business of the assessee was deductible and that was why it was stated by Macleod, C.J., in In re. Tata Iron and Steel Company, I Income-Tax Cases 125 at 131. "'Such profits' refer to the profits earned by the business generally and not to the profits of a particular year on which a particular assessment is levied. This is obvious because expenditure necessarily proceeds the earning of profits, and much of the profits of one year must be earned by the expenses incurred in the previous year or years". and by Shah, J. in the same decision: "I do not feel any difficulty in rejecting the suggestion made by the learned Advocate-General that the 'profits' referred to in the clause must mean the profits of one particular year in which the expenditure in question is incurred. There is no such limitation in the section; and in the absence of any words indicating such a limitation, it is clear that the contention cannot be accepted". 5. The provision we have to deal with is entirely different. There is no such limitation in the section; and in the absence of any words indicating such a limitation, it is clear that the contention cannot be accepted". 5. The provision we have to deal with is entirely different. For a deduction to be permissible as far as agricultural income in this State is concerned it is not enough if the expenditure was not in the nature of capital expenditure and was in respect of the agricultural operations of the assessee during the accounting year. It must be far more intimately related - so related as to form a link in the chain of causation - to the crop that earned the profits or gains which form the basis of the assessment. It follows that we have to hold that the assessee's claim is unsustainable and answer the question referred in the negative. 6. The Department will have the costs of all these references, advocate's fees Rs. 200 for all the four references together.