THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CYNAMID INDIA LTD.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 4403/1996Supreme Court[1999] 2 S.C.R. 60113 April 1999Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: S.P. BHARUCHA, R.C. LAHOTI COMMISSIONER OF4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Cynamid India Ltd., manufactured animal feed using rice husk as a primary raw material. The assessee claimed deductions under Sections 35B and 35C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for expenditure incurred on distributing literature and pamphlets to cultivators on modern agricultural techniques to increase yields, and for export promotion. The Tribunal disallowed the deduction under Section 35C, holding that rice husk was not an 'agricultural product' as it was a result of dehusking paddy, not a direct agricultural endeavor. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order. The Revenue appealed to the Supreme Court, but confined its submissions to one of the three questions entertained by the Court, relating to Section 35C.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was correct in its decision. Regarding the deduction under Section 35C, the Court agreed with the High Court's liberal interpretation of 'agricultural product'. It reasoned that the operation of dehusking paddy is an agricultural operation, not an industrial or manufacturing one. Both rice and husk remain in their natural form after dehusking and are thus covered by the term 'agricultural product'. The Court emphasized that Section 35C was designed to encourage agricultural development, and the term 'agricultural product' should be construed broadly to include products that undergo simple operations to become more usable or saleable. Therefore, rice husk, being a product of dehusking paddy, qualified as an agricultural product for the purpose of the deduction. The appeals concerning export promotion expenses (Questions 6 and 8) were not pressed by the Revenue and were dismissed on that basis. The Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue as devoid of merit.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to deduction under Section 35C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for expenditure incurred in disseminating information on modern agricultural techniques to cultivators, on the ground that rice husk, used as raw material, was not an 'agricultural product'? (Question 4 in the High Court reference) Assessee's Contention: Not explicitly recorded, but implied by the High Court's favorable ruling. Revenue's Contention: The Tribunal was right in disallowing the deduction because rice husk is not a 'product of agriculture' as it is not a direct outcome of agricultural endeavor; only paddy is an agricultural product, and husk is a result of the process of dehusking, which is not agriculture. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim for weighted deduction for export promotion expenses ought not to be allowed? (Question 6 in the High Court reference) Assessee's Contention: Not recorded. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue conceded and did not press this appeal as the quantum of revenue involved was very small. 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on only 50% of the amount ought to be allowed? (Question 8 in the High Court reference) Assessee's Contention: Not recorded. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue conceded and did not press this appeal as the quantum of revenue involved was very small.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 35B,Section 35C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX A v. MIS CYNAMID INDIA LTD. APRIL 13, 1999 [S.P. BHARUCHA AND R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.] B Income-tax Act 1961-Section 35 B & C-Exemption claimed towards expenditure incurred-Disallowed by the Tribunal on the ground that the product on which claim was made was not an agricultural product-High Court set aside the order of Tribunal-On appeal, held, the term "agricultural C product" should be construed liberally and exemption claimed could be allowed.

Respondent-Assessee manufactured animal feed with rice husk as the main raw material The Assessee incurred certain expenditure towards distribution of Literature and pamphlets containing ~odern ·techniques for D increasing yields, amongst the cultivators. The asseslee claimed deduction U/s 35 B and C of the Income-tax Act for the expenditure incurred for distribution of pamphlets and also for export promotion.

The Tribunal disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee on the, E ground that rice husk was not a "Product of agriculture" because the same was not the direct outcome of agricultural endeavour.

Rice husk is the process of dehusking and therefore paddy alone could be considered as a

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 35B

All 31 judgments and leading authorities on Section 35B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →