HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
State of Tamil Nadu v. Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1175-1178 of 1970
[1972] 1 SCR 1016 ·
Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955: section 6 and rules 7-8 · Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: section 59 and rule 54
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
2-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by A. N. Grover, J. · K. S. Hegde, J. · A. N. Grover, J.
Assessment years: 1956-57, 1957-58, 1958-59, 1960-61
01 · Facts of the case
The Chittavurai tea estate operated as one unit: 1,006.60 acres in Kerala, 36.40 in Tamil Nadu, one Kerala factory and common accounts. Earlier agricultural assessments used 60% of the central income-tax computation. For 1960-61 the State officer separately valued the higher-yield Tamil Nadu acreage despite the central computation showing an overall loss, and also reopened three prior years (SCR pp.1016-1019; PDF pp.1-4).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Rule 7 covered tea grown and manufactured in Madras, whereas this tea was manufactured in Kerala. Rule 8 did not aptly cover tea because raw leaves had no relevant market value until special manufacture and rule 7 was the specific tea rule. Given the integrated unit, common accounts, tiny Madras portion and inadequate reasons for departing from the central computation, using that computation was the only satisfactory basis here. The Court left the universal binding effect of central computation undecided (SCR pp.1019-1021; PDF pp.4-6).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
The Court upheld the High Court's quashing of reopening and direction to revise 1960-61 on the central computation, dismissing the appeals with one set of costs (SCR p.1021; PDF p.6).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of the assessee on these integrated-estate facts; the State's separate acreage-based profit computation and reopening did not stand (SCR pp.1020-1021; PDF pp.5-6).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: for geographically split agricultural operations, map where cultivation, manufacture and accounting occur before selecting an apportionment rule. Preserve the Court's reservation and verify today's statutory coordination rather than treating central computation as universally binding (based on SCR pp.1019-1021; PDF pp.4-6).
Source: Primary judgment: review point
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 6-page SCR source asset read in page-preserving text and visually inspected.
- Exact source bytes, SHA-256 and six-page count match catalogue asset 1972_1_1016_1021; every page was read and visually inspected.
- The source verifies the four appeals, statutory rules, acreage facts and dismissal.
- No exact source-hash, asset-ID, SCR-citation, docket or same-judgment match was found.
Statutory scope
The ruling applies historic Madras agricultural income-tax rules and the repealed 1922 Act tea-computation rule; no current apportionment rule is represented.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-11. Later judicial treatment and current statutory applicability have not been comprehensively checked; no current-law or citator clearance is represented.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Coverage, AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
Selected Supreme Court income-tax decisions and procedural orders checked against their identified sources. This collection is not exhaustive. The research catalogue has 2,569 indexed PDF assets, including alternate copies and incidental matches; that is not a count of unique or reviewed judgments. Historical and unreported coverage remains open.
AI-assisted research checked against the identified source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on facts, assessment year, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless a note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.
The official 1961–2025 structural correspondence does not establish that a precedent applies under the new Act. Verify the enacted wording, commencement and transitional provisions separately.