DEBRA DUN TEA CO. LTD. & ANR. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, U.P., LUCKNOW

CIVIL APPEAL No. 56/1970Supreme Court[1973] 3 S.C.R. 8312 December 1972Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: K.S. HEGDE, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee companies, tea growers, had their income taxed under Section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, with only 40% of their income and expenditure being brought to tax as per Rule 24. The companies claimed that the tax paid under the U.P. Large Land Holdings Tax Act, 1957, was deductible under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act. This claim was disallowed by the income-tax authorities. The High Court, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Travancore Titanium Product Ltd. v. C.I.T. Kerala, answered the question in favour of the Revenue. The companies appealed, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal. The Revenue contended that the Indian Aluminium decision was inapplicable as the U.P. tax was levied on the companies as owners.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that the tax paid under the U.P. Large Land Holdings Tax Act, 1957, is deductible under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The Court applied the ratio of the Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. case, stating that the lands owned by the assessee companies were their business assets, and the tax paid thereon was an expenditure laid out by them as traders and incidental to their business. The Court rejected the Revenue's contention that the Indian Aluminium decision was inapplicable, clarifying that a tea-grower is considered an owner-cum-trader. Consequently, any expenditure incurred by them must be considered as incurred by a trader in connection with their business activity. The Court also noted that while only 40% of the net income is taxed, the assessee would only be entitled to a deduction of 40% of the expenditure incurred. The Court further held that Section 40 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as amended in 1972, had no bearing on the decision as it did not deal with wealth-tax or similar taxes. The High Court's answer was revoked, and the question was answered in favour of the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the tax paid by the assessee companies on tea-garden lands under the U.P. Large Land Holdings Tax Act, 1957, is deductible under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The tax paid under the U.P. Act is an expenditure laid out as traders and incidental to their business, and therefore deductible under Section 10(2)(xv). They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal. Revenue's contention: The decision in Indian Aluminium was inapplicable because the tax under the U.P. Act was levied on the companies as owners, not as traders. They also argued that Section 40 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as amended in 1972, barred such deductions. They contended that since tea-growers are assessed on only 40% of their income, the tax paid is on the ownership aspect.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(2)(xv),Section 66(1),Section 40

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

8 c D E F G H DEBRA DUN TEA CO. LTD. & ANR. v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, U.P., LUCKNOW December 12, 1972 [K. S. HEGDE AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.] Income-tax Act 1922 s. 10(2) (xv)-Deductib/e expenditure-Tax paid by tea growers under U.P. Large Land Holdings Act XXXJ of 1951 whether deductible.

The assessee companies were growers of tea. Their income was taxed under s. 10 of the Income-tax Act 1922 but under Rule 24 of the Rules framed under the Act only 40% of their income was brought to tax.

The expenditure was also allowed to the extent of 40%. The companies claimed that the tax paid by them under the U.P. Large Land Holdings Tax Act 1957 was deductible under s. 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act.

The claim was disallowed by the income-tax authorities. In a reference under s. 66(1) the High Court, relying upon the deciaion of this Court in Travancore Titanium Product Ltd. v. CJ.T. Kera/a (60 I.T.R. 277) answered the questi0n in favour of t,he Revenue.

Jn these appeals the companies relied on the decision of this Court in Indian A.lumlnhun Co.

Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal (84 I.T.R. 735). It was contended on behalf of the respondent

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 10(2)(xv)

All 90 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(2)(xv) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →