HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Union of India and Another v. Belgachi Tea Co. Ltd. and Others
Civil Appeal Nos. 8284-8285 of 2002 with Civil Appeal No. 8283 of 2002
[2008] 8 SCR 51 ·
Income-tax Act, 1961: section 2(1A) · Income-tax Rules, 1962: rule 8 · Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1944: section 8 · Constitution of India: article 366(1); Seventh Schedule, List I, entry 82 and List II, entry 46
Holding and result. Rule 8’s 40:60 allocation applied to income from tea grown and manufactured; direct green-leaf sales were wholly agricultural income taxable by the State, not incidental central business income, and contrary assessments had to be remade.
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
Two-judge bench; judgment delivered by Dalveer Bhandari, J. · Dalveer Bhandari, J. · H. S. Bedi, J.
Assessment years: 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80, 1980-81
01 · Facts of the case
Belgachi grew tea, manufactured tea in its factory and also sold green leaves directly. It contended that all income should first be assessed centrally and split 40:60. The High Court followed Tata Tea: mixed grown-and-manufactured tea income was split, while direct green-leaf sale income was agricultural income under the State Act.
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Rule 8 and section 8 addressed mixed income from the combined activities of growing and manufacturing tea, where common expenses made segregation impracticable and only one income computation should precede the 40:60 allocation. Direct green-leaf sale receipts were different: they came from an agricultural product and could not become incidental business income merely because the same assessee also manufactured tea. The State officer had to use the central assessment for the 60% composite share without permitting duplicate expense deductions.
Source: Primary judgment: reasoning
03 · Judicial decision
The Court upheld the High Court’s three-part approach: central assessment of grown-and-manufactured tea income, 40% central and 60% State taxation of that amount, and State taxation of direct green-leaf sale income.
Source: Primary judgment: holdings
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
Appeals disposed of; the assessing officer was directed to frame or replace contrary assessments under Tata Tea as expeditiously as possible. Parties bore their own costs.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: classify each tea receipt before applying the composite rule. The 40:60 split attaches to tea grown and manufactured, not automatically to separately sold green leaves; reconcile central and State computations so the same income or expense is not counted twice.
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete 14-page SCR report read in page-preserving text and every page image inspected, from the reported opening page through the operative disposition.
- Exact catalogue SHA-256 and 14-page count verified; every page was read and visually inspected.
Statutory scope
Historical statutory provisions are described as they appeared in the report. Verify the current enactment, amendments and later judicial treatment before reliance.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-12. No comprehensive later-treatment or present-law clearance is represented. The note reports the historical statutory text and result in this primary report only.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
This AKHB research note was prepared with AI assistance from the identified primary report and has not been represented as independently human-reviewed.
General legal and tax research only; not legal or tax advice. Verify the complete judgment, governing statutory version and subsequent judicial treatment before reliance. The AKHB REVIEW POINT is editorial analysis, not the Court's holding, and no current-law clearance is claimed.