1. Karim Tharuvi v. State of Kerla

48 ITR 83Supreme Court of India1963#5326 most cited

What is 1. Karim Tharuvi v. State of Kerla authority for?

Expenses incurred for maintenance of immature tea bushes in an existing garden are revenue in nature and allowable as deductions. Such expenses do not create an enduring benefit of a capital nature.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Karim Tharuvi v. State of Kerala · 48 ITR 83 · SC · immature tea bushes · maintenance expenses · revenue expenditure · capital expenditure · tea business income

Judgments citing 1. Karim Tharuvi v. State of Kerla

DCIT, Circle - 4, Kolkata vs. M/S. Tirrihannah Co. Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 781/KOL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, A.M. & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M.)

For Appellant: S/Shri Somnath Ghosh & Sarnath Ghosh, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 260A

…ung tea plants maintenance, basing on the decision reported in 129 Taxman 647. The ld.CIT(A) allowed the said expenditure as revenue expenditure relying on judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karimtharuvi Tea Estate vs. State of Kerala 48 ITR 83(SC). The submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the expenditure incurred to maintain young tea plants is of revenue expenditure, thereby the assessee company claimed deduction of the said amount in accordance with the decision reported in [2003] 262 ITR 388 (Cal) in the case of CIT-vs- Tasati Tea Ltd. The M/s. Tirrihannah Co.Ltd. A…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Willamson Financial Services

C.A. No.-003803-003808 - 2005Supreme Court12 Dec 2007

Bench: The 60 : 40 Apportionment Under Rule 8(1) Or From 40% Profits On Sales Taxable As Business Income. 3. Rule 8(1) Of The Said Rule Provides That 40% Of The Composite Income From Sale Of Tea, Grown & Manufactured, Arrived At On Making Of The Apportionment \023Shall Be Deemed To Be Income Liable To Tax\024. 4. Assessees Exported Tea In The Accounting Year. They Were Entitled To Deduction Under Section 80Hhc Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, \0211961 Act\024) In Respect Of The Export. They Were In The Business Of Growing & Manufacturing Tea. Since They Earned Composite Income, Their Case Stood Covered By Rule 8(1) Of Income-Tax Rules, 1962 (\0231962 Rule\024 For Short). 5. For The Sake Of Convenience We State The Facts Occurring In Civil Appeal No.3803-3808 Of 2005- Commissioner Of Income Tax V. Willamson Financial Services & Ors. In The Returns, The Assessee Claimed Section 80Hhc Deduction Against The Entire Composite Income Before Application Of Rule 8(1).

For Respondent: Willamson Financial Services & Ors
Section 2(45)Section 295Section 5Section 80H

…Supply Industrial Company Ltd. (supra) has no application. 42. Reliance was also placed by the assessees on the judgment of this Court in the case of The Karim Tharuvi Tea Estates Ltd., Kottayam and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors. \026 (1963) 48 ITR 83 (SC). In that decision this Court referred to the provisions of Section 10 of I.T. Act, 1922 and to the deduction available thereunder as being deductible while computing the composite income. It was not concerned with Section 80HHC Deduction. Therefore, that judgment has no application to the present case. 43. Even in the case…