McLeod Russel India Ltd. v. CIT

260 CTR 337High Court2013#9604 most cited

What is McLeod Russel India Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Income derived from the sale of various business-related receipts and licenses, including those related to customs and excise duty drawback, scrapes, DEPB licenses, and import licenses obtained for tea exports, is to be treated as part of the composite income from the tea business. Consequently, only 40% of such income is taxable as business income, with the remaining 60% being treated as agricultural income under Rule 8 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

McLeod Russel India Ltd. v. CIT · Rule 8 · 40% agricultural income · composite income · business income · tea company · DEPB license · import license · customs duty drawback

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 1962Section 28Section 44

Judgments citing McLeod Russel India Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT Cir-4(1), Kolkata vs. Andrew Yule and Co Ltd, Kolkata

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

ITA 1917/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Rakesh Mishra]

Section 143(2)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “ए’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी "द"प कुमार चौबे, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राकेश "म", लेखा सट"य के सम" [Before Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member &Shri Rakesh Mishra, Accountant Member] I.T.A. No. 1917/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 DCIT, Circle-4(1), Kolkata Vs. Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. (PAN: AAECM 4087 E) ( अपीलाथ" ) Respondent / ""यथ" Appellant / Date of Hearing / सुनवाई 17.04.2025 क" "त"थ Date of Pronouncement/ 06.05.2025 आदेश उ"घोषणा क" "त"थ For the assessee / Shri Vikash Singh, Advocate "नधा"रती क" ओर से For the revenue / राज"व S…

A.C.Paul Agricultural Co. Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri vs. D.C.I.T., Cir-1, Kolkata, Siliguri

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2469/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 2469/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C. Paul Agricultural Co. Pvt. D.C.I.T., Cir-I, Siliguri Ltd. Vs ‘Arjun Bhawan’ 177, Hill Cart Road Siliguri Darjeeling - 734001 [Pan : Aacca5650M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/01/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajpal Yadav: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Siliguri, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 19/09/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Before Taking Cognizance Of The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee In Seriatim, We Deem It Proper To Take Note Of The Brief Background. The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Tea Plantation & Manufacturing Of Tea. It Has Filed Its Return Of Income On 28/09/2013 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.96,04,272/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment & A Notice U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued & Served Upon The Assessee. The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Passed Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 18/03/2016. The Assessing Officer Has Made Certain

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 250Section 37Section 40Section 40a

…company is a tea grower and manufacturer of Tea. As per Rule 8 of the IT Rules 1962, only 40% of its income is liable to be taxed under Income Tax and balance 60% of income has to be treated as agricultural income. In Mcleod Russel India(P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2013)260 CTR 337 (Gauhati HC)// 90 DTR 425, The assessee had earned incomes from sale of license granted under customs & Central Excise duty draw back & sale of scrapes. The assessee had also received insurance claim on A/C of loss caused to the business of tea, finished plantation etc., due to flood and heavy rains. All the incomes & receipts had been treated as…

Apeejay Surrendra Corporate Services Ltd. (Now Known As Apeejay Tea Ltd.), Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1494/KOL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1494/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Halder, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.1494/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) ApeejaySurrendra Corporate Vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata Services Ltd. (Now Known as Apeejay Tea Ltd.) 15, Park Street, Kolkata-700016 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAECA1925D (Assessee) .. (Revenue) Assessee by :Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA Respondent by : Shri Sankar Halder, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 13/02/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 29/03/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: The captioned…

Shefali Ghosh, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 43, Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

ITA 1810/KOL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No.1810/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2004-05 Smt. Shefali Ghosh Vs. A.C.I.T, Cir-43, Kolkata Pan: Adtpg6963A (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Ld.Ar For The Respondent : Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit, Ld.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 33ASection 80H

…included in sub clause iii(d) of clause (iii) of section 28 of the Act as income chargeable to tax under the head "Profits and Gains of Business or Profession" and, therefore, as per the order of Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in Mcleod Russel India Ltd. Vs. CIT 260 CTR 337 (Gau), this amount has to be included in composite income before applying Rule 8(1) of the Rules. Further a new proviso to section 80HHC(3) has been inserted for allowing the deduction for profit on account of sale of DEPB licence. For this purpose the exporters have been classified in 2 categories ­ (1) Assessees having export turnover upto Rs.…

Goodricke Group Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 309/KOL/2015[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2018AY 2002-2003

Bench: "ी पी.एम .जगताप, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri P. M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10Section 33A

…included in sub clause iii(d) of clause (iii) of section 28 of the Act as income chargeable to tax under the head “Profits and Gains of Business or Profession” and, therefore, as per the order of Hon’ble Guwahati High Court in Mcleod Russel India Ltd. Vs. CIT 260 CTR 337 (Gau) this amount has to be included in composite income before applying Rule 8(1) of the Rules. Similarly, the gain on fluctuation in the rate of foreign exchange, which is also from the export of the 10 Goodricke Group Ltd., AY- 2002-03 tea which is also an income from the activity of the assessee company from the sale of tea grown and manufact…

M/S.Kannan Devan Hills Plantations Co. P. Ltd, Munnar vs. The ACIT, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed

ITA 91/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri George George K., Jm & Manjunatha G., Am

Section 80I

…and hence is to be treated as taxable under Rule 8 of I.T. Rules. Assessing Officer treated such income as taxable under Central income. The CIT(A) following the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Guwahati in the case of McLeod Russel India Ltd. vs. CIT 260 CTR 337 deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 10.2 Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 10.3 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The import licenses were obtained by the assessee company on account of a scheme for promoting tea ex…

M/S.Kannan Devan Hills Plantations Co. P. Ltd, Munnar vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed

ITA 78/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri George George K., Jm & Manjunatha G., Am

Section 80I

…and hence is to be treated as taxable under Rule 8 of I.T. Rules. Assessing Officer treated such income as taxable under Central income. The CIT(A) following the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Guwahati in the case of McLeod Russel India Ltd. vs. CIT 260 CTR 337 deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 10.2 Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 10.3 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The import licenses were obtained by the assessee company on account of a scheme for promoting tea ex…

M/S.Kannan Devan Hills Plantations Co. P. Ltd, Munnar vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed

ITA 77/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri George George K., Jm & Manjunatha G., Am

Section 80I

…and hence is to be treated as taxable under Rule 8 of I.T. Rules. Assessing Officer treated such income as taxable under Central income. The CIT(A) following the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Guwahati in the case of McLeod Russel India Ltd. vs. CIT 260 CTR 337 deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 10.2 Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 10.3 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The import licenses were obtained by the assessee company on account of a scheme for promoting tea ex…

The ACIT, Cochin vs. M/S. Kannan Devan Hills Plantations Co., P. Ltd, Idukki

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed

ITA 164/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri George George K., Jm & Manjunatha G., Am

Section 80I

…and hence is to be treated as taxable under Rule 8 of I.T. Rules. Assessing Officer treated such income as taxable under Central income. The CIT(A) following the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Guwahati in the case of McLeod Russel India Ltd. vs. CIT 260 CTR 337 deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 10.2 Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 10.3 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The import licenses were obtained by the assessee company on account of a scheme for promoting tea ex…

The ACIT, Cochin vs. M/S. Kannan Devan Hills Plantations Co., P. Ltd, Idukki

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed

ITA 163/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri George George K., Jm & Manjunatha G., Am

Section 80I

…and hence is to be treated as taxable under Rule 8 of I.T. Rules. Assessing Officer treated such income as taxable under Central income. The CIT(A) following the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Guwahati in the case of McLeod Russel India Ltd. vs. CIT 260 CTR 337 deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 10.2 Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 10.3 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The import licenses were obtained by the assessee company on account of a scheme for promoting tea ex…

M/S Apeejay Tea Limited(Marged With Apeejay Surrendra Corporate Services Ltd.), Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T CC - III, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2456/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Md.Ghayas Uddin, JCIT,Sr.DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, AM & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM ] I.T.A No. 2456/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/s. Apeejay Tea Ltd. -vs.- D.C.I.T.- Central Circle-III, (Merged with Apeejay Surrendra Kolkata Corporate Service Ltd., Kolkata [PAN : AAECA1925D] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA For the Respondent : Md.Ghayas Uddin, JCIT,Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 28.11.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 2.12.2016. ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 16.07.2013 of CIT(A)- Cen…