Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Commr. Of Income Tax vs M/S Apeejay Tea Co.Ltd. on 6 August, 2015
¼- IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1105 OF 2006
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ... Appellant
VERSUS
M/S APEEJAY TEA CO.LTD. ... Respondent
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3168 OF 2006
SLP(C) NO. 19906 OF 2012
O R D E R
The respondent-assessee had paid cess on green leaf to the Government of Assam which was levied under Assam Taxation (On Specified Land) Act, 1990. In its income tax return, it had claimed the same as deduction which has been allowed by the High Court. The relevant discussion in this behalf is as under: -
"However, the learned Tribunal had held that the deduction is eligible after computing the income under Rule 8 and the apportionment is to be made only after the income is so computed. Such apportionment cannot be made before the deduction. Rule 8 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 requires that the computation is to be made as if by fiction the entire income out of the tea grown and manufactured as income assessable under the Income Tax Act, 1961. In view of Rule 8, the income so computed is to be apportioned 60:40 of which 40 is assessable to tax under the Act. It does not provide that after apportionment of the 60% of the income so computed shall again be required to be computed under the Signature Not Verified Agricultural Income Tax Act. On the other hand, this Digitally signed by Suman Wadhwa Date: 2015.08.21 60% is exposed and becomes exigible to tax under the 16:20:42 IST Reason: Agricultural Income Tax Act without being required to be assessed under the said Act by reason of the fiction so created. Therefore, the cess paid has C.A. No. 1105/2006 etc. 1 rightly been excluded while computing the income under Rule 8 of the tea grown and manufactured."
In arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, the High Court has referred to the various judgments of this Court. We are of the opinion that the High Court has rightly interpreted the scope of Rule 8 of the Income Tax Rules 1962. We, thus, find no merit in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3168 OF 2006 SLP(C) NO. 19906 OF 2012 The appeal and the petition stand dismissed in terms of the aforesaid order passed in Civil Appeal No. 1105 of 2006.
........................., J. [ A.K. SIKRI ] ........................., J. [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ] New Delhi;
August 06, 2015.
C.A. No. 1105/2006 etc. 2 ITEM NO.111 COURT NO.11 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No. 1105/2006 COMMR. OF INCOME TAX Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S APEEJAY TEA CO.LTD. Respondent(s) (With office report)
WITH C.A. No. 3168/2006 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 19906/2012 (With appln.(s) for amendment of cause title and Office Report) Date : 06/08/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Appellant(s) Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. D. L. Chidananda, Adv.
Ms. Sadhna Sandhu, Adv.
Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, Adv.
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S. Sukumaran, Adv.
Mr. Anand Sukumar, Adv.
Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Pathak, Adv. Mr. K. Rajeev, Adv.
Mr. S. Sukumaran, Adv.
Mr. Anand Sukumar, Adv.
Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Pathak, Adv. Ms. Meera Mathur, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Application for amendment of cause title is allowed in SLP (C)No. 19906 of 2012.
The appeals and the special leave petition stand dismissed in terms of the signed order.
(Nidhi Ahuja) (Suman Jain)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
[Signed order is placed on the file.] C.A. No. 1105/2006 etc. 3