Assam Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam

248 ITR 567Reported decision2001#10406 most cited

What is Assam Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam authority for?

Rules framed under an Act cannot override the provisions of the Act itself. If there is a conflict between the Act and its Rules, the Act will prevail.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Assam Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam · 248 ITR 567 · conflict between Act and Rules · Act prevails over rules · section 35(2AB) · DSIR quantification · weighted deduction · R&D expenditure

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 234DSection 35(1)(i)Section 35(2AB)Section 90Section 170Section 234ASection 234B

Issues it is cited on

scientific research expendituresection 35(1)(i)section 2(43)depreciation on softwaresection 170business transfer agreementsection 35(1)r&d expenditureopening wdvsection 40(a)(ii)depreciation on goodwillslump sale

Judgments citing Assam Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 293/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

…xt, the learned AR relied on settled legal principles that rules framed under the Act cannot go beyond or override the provisions of the Act. Reliance was placed on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including Assam Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam reported in 248 ITR 567 and CIT v. Chennappa Mudaliar reported in 74 ITR 41, to ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 42 of 53 submit that if there is any conflict between the Act and the Rules, the Act must prevail. 53.4 The learned AR further submitted that the mandate to quantify expenditure was introduced only by amendment to the Rules with effect from 01.07.2016, with…

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 292/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

…xt, the learned AR relied on settled legal principles that rules framed under the Act cannot go beyond or override the provisions of the Act. Reliance was placed on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including Assam Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam reported in 248 ITR 567 and CIT v. Chennappa Mudaliar reported in 74 ITR 41, to ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 42 of 53 submit that if there is any conflict between the Act and the Rules, the Act must prevail. 53.4 The learned AR further submitted that the mandate to quantify expenditure was introduced only by amendment to the Rules with effect from 01.07.2016, with…

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 291/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

…xt, the learned AR relied on settled legal principles that rules framed under the Act cannot go beyond or override the provisions of the Act. Reliance was placed on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including Assam Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam reported in 248 ITR 567 and CIT v. Chennappa Mudaliar reported in 74 ITR 41, to submit that if there is any conflict between the Act and the Rules, the Act must prevail. 53.4 The learned AR further submitted that the mandate to quantify expenditure was introduced only by amendment to the Rules with effect from 01.07.2016, without any corresponding amendment to section 3…

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 290/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

…xt, the learned AR relied on settled legal principles that rules framed under the Act cannot go beyond or override the provisions of the Act. Reliance was placed on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including Assam Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam reported in 248 ITR 567 and CIT v. Chennappa Mudaliar reported in 74 ITR 41, to ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 42 of 53 submit that if there is any conflict between the Act and the Rules, the Act must prevail. 53.4 The learned AR further submitted that the mandate to quantify expenditure was introduced only by amendment to the Rules with effect from 01.07.2016, with…

Hindustan Unilever Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Cir 1(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 5431/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10BSection 80HSection 80I

…ed the provisions of Rule 8 and the other relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act and has also referred to decisions of the Supreme Court in Tata Tea Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, [1988] :it" ITR 18, Assam Company Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of Assam & Ors [2001] 248 ITR 567. In view of the above, it is submitted that the cess on green leaf is an expenditure incurred while growing and manufacture of tea and ought to be apportioned in terms of the provisions of Rule 8." 50. The Assessing Officer however denied the claim of the assessee by relying on the decision of the Guwahati High Court in the case of Jorhaut Group…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri V.Madhusudhan

In the result, the petition stands dismissed

ITA/124/2014HC Karnataka24 Feb 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 55Section 8

…-B of the Central Rules, and whether - 3 - or not the Assessing Officer is bound to accept the computation of Agricultural Income as made by the Central Officer under the Central Income Tax Act, as laid down by the Supreme Court in 69 ITR 667, 248 ITR 567 and 304 ITR 1 and by our High Court in the case of M/s.Balanoor Plantation and Industries Limited in Writ Petition Nos.4320 to 4322/2009? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the re-computation of the Agricultural Income under Section 8 of the K.A.I.T Act, by the Assessing Officer, is illegal and without jurisd…

The Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd, Kottayam vs. The ACIT, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2/COCH/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Iype JohnFor Respondent: Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 10

…provision clearly states that the income determined by the CTO will be adopted by the State Officer and to that extent there can be no conflict Kindly refer Supreme Court decision in the case of Assam Company Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Assam as reported in 248 ITR 567 and the Kerala High Court decision in the case of Tata Tea Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner as reported in (2006) 1 KLT 752. (c) Expenditure on re-plantation of an area where from no income is derived by the assessee is not to be reckoned in computation of income from yielding area This finding is not consistent with the decision of th…

The Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd, Kottayam vs. The ACIT, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1/COCH/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Iype JohnFor Respondent: Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 10

…provision clearly states that the income determined by the CTO will be adopted by the State Officer and to that extent there can be no conflict Kindly refer Supreme Court decision in the case of Assam Company Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Assam as reported in 248 ITR 567 and the Kerala High Court decision in the case of Tata Tea Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner as reported in (2006) 1 KLT 752. (c) Expenditure on re-plantation of an area where from no income is derived by the assessee is not to be reckoned in computation of income from yielding area This finding is not consistent with the decision of th…

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Aruba Networks India

In the result, the petition stands dismissed

ITA/323/2017HC Karnataka08 Aug 2018

Bench: Going To The Merits Of The Case & Consequently Whether Or Not The Tribunal’S Order Is Vitiated & Hence Unsustainable In Law?

Section 34Section 55Section 55(1)Section 8

…argued that the Assessing Officer exercising the power under the State Act has exceeded the jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Assam Company Ltd., and Another V/s. State of Assam and Others [(2001) 248 ITR 567]. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue would submit that the Assessing Officer has rightly determined the income disallowing the excess expenditure claimed by the assessee. The Assessing Authority has competency to assess 75% of the income which was not the subject matter of assessment under the provisions of the Central…

Smt Latha H M vs. Dr Ravindranath H M

In the result, the petition stands dismissed

RPFC/124/2014HC Karnataka27 Apr 2018

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

Section 55Section 8

…-B of the Central Rules, and whether - 3 - or not the Assessing Officer is bound to accept the computation of Agricultural Income as made by the Central Officer under the Central Income Tax Act, as laid down by the Supreme Court in 69 ITR 667, 248 ITR 567 and 304 ITR 1 and by our High Court in the case of M/s.Balanoor Plantation and Industries Limited in Writ Petition Nos.4320 to 4322/2009? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the re-computation of the Agricultural Income under Section 8 of the K.A.I.T Act, by the Assessing Officer, is illegal and without jurisd…

Assam Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam (248 ITR 567) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax