I N THE HI GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA ::

HYDERABAD * * *

I NCOME TAX TRI BUNAL APPEAL Nos.91 and 92 of 2008 Between:

M/s. A.G. Biotech Laboratories (India) Ltd.

Bachupalli Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

Appellant VERSUS Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hyderabad.

Respondent COMMON JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 21.11.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE NARSI NG RAO NANDI KONDA

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes _______________

P.SAM KOSHY, J * THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE NARSI NG RAO NANDI KONDA + I NCOME TAX TRI BUNAL APPEAL Nos.91 and 92 of 2008 % 21.11.2025 # Between:

M/s. A.G. Biotech Laboratories (India) Ltd.

Bachupalli Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

Appellant VERSUS Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hyderabad.

Respondent ! Counsel for appellant : Mr. A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.V. Krishna Koundinya.

^ Counsel for respondent : Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for Income Tax Department appearing on behalf of Mr. J.V. Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department.

> HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred

1) 2014 SCC OnLine Guj 13112

2) 241 ITR 530

3) (1957) 32 ITR 466 : 1957 SCC OnLine SC 34

4) ITTA No.88 of 2014, decided on 21.02.2014

5) [2025] taxmann.com 486 (Telangana)

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE NARSI NG RAO NANDI KONDA I NCOME TAX TRI BUNAL APPEAL Nos.91 and 92 of 2008

COMMON JUDGMENT:

(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr. A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.V. Krishna Koundinya, learned counsel for the appellant; and Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department appearing for Mr. J.V. Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, for the respondent.

2. Income Tax Tribunal Appeal No.91 of 2008 is filed by the appellant / assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’) assailing the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ‘B’ Hyderabad (for short the ‘ITAT’) in I.T.A.No.1172/Hyd/2006, for the assessment year 2002-03, decided on 28.09.2007. Similarly, Income Tax Tribunal Appeal No.92 of 2008 is filed by the same assessee under Section 260A of the Act assailing the order passed by the ITAT, in I.T.A.No.1173/Hyd/2006, for the assessment year 2003-04, which also stands decided on 28.09.2007.

3. Since the issue involved in both the Appeals is one and the same, the parties to be dispute being the same, and the contentions raised on either side also being the same, we proceed to decided the two Appeals by this common judgment.

4. For convenience, the facts in Income Tax Tribunal Appeal No.91 of 2008 are discussed hereunder.

5. The appellant M/s.A.G. Biotech Laboratories (P) Ltd. is engaged in the business of micro-propagation of plants through tissue culture technology. The primary dispute in the instant case is classification of income earned by the assessee from the sale of tissue-cultured plants for the assessment year 2002-03. The assessee claimed that this income should be treated as agricultural income exempt from tax under Section 10(1) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer rejected this claim and treated the income as business income subject to taxation. The tissue culture process adopted by the assessee involves taking tissue samples from mother plants grown on land, culturing these tissues in a clinical laboratory under sterile conditions, multiplying the plant material through micro-propagation techniques, and subjecting the cultured plants to various processes to make them suitable for withstanding normal atmospheric conditions before finally selling these plants in the