2008 (1) TMI 822 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance of deduction claimed under section 9(4) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 on investment in the equity of a company which set up an industry for centrifuging latex Held that - If the assessee s contention that ceiling of 50 per cent. is with reference to total agricultural income before computation is accepted, then the assessee will be able to borrow funds and invest in the eligible industry and claim deduction which is not intended under the Act. In this particular case, the assessee whose agricultural income is computed at ₹ 39,67,570 has made an investment of ₹ 68 lakhs in an industry engaged in manufacture of centrifuged latex. Obviously, since the investment exceeds the income, it does not qualify for deduction. Therefore, even if our answer to the first question was in favour of the assessee, we do not think the assessee would have got benefit because as against the agricultural income computed at ₹ 39,67,570, the assessee has made investment of ₹ 68 lakhs which is not permissible under section 9(4) of the Act. Appeal dismissed.

Issues:
1. Disallowance of deduction claimed under section 9(4) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991.
2. Eligibility of investment in a company engaged in centrifuging rubber latex for deduction.
3. Interpretation of the relevant section 9(4) of the Act.
4. Compliance with the conditions for deduction under section 9(4).
5. Ceiling of investment with respect to total agricultural income.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a challenge to the disallowance of a deduction claimed under section 9(4) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991. The assessee had invested in a company setting up an industry for centrifuging rubber latex. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction on the grounds that the industry did not qualify and the investment exceeded the income.

2. The key issue was whether the industry engaged in centrifuging rubber latex qualified for deduction under section 9(4). The Tribunal, along with the first appellate authority, held that the industry did not qualify for deduction as it was considered a downstream industry of the produce of the plantation, falling within the negative clause of the section post-amendment.

3. The interpretation of section 9(4) was crucial in determining the eligibility of the investment. The amendment introduced a qualification stating that downstream industries of the produce of the plantation were not eligible for deduction. The court analyzed the nature of the industry and concluded that it fell within the negative list, even without the amendment.

4. Compliance with the conditions for deduction under section 9(4) was also examined. The investment made by the assessee exceeded the total agricultural income, rendering it impermissible for deduction. The court emphasized that the investment should not exceed the income computed without the deduction under the section.

5. Lastly, the issue of the ceiling of investment with respect to total agricultural income was addressed. The court highlighted that the investment should be from the agricultural income of the assessee and should not exceed the total income computed without the deduction. In this case, the investment exceeded the income, making it ineligible for deduction.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the tax revision case based on the findings that the industry did not qualify for deduction under section 9(4) and the investment exceeded the total agricultural income, thus not meeting the criteria for deduction as per the Act.

← Previous Next →