SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 63331

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P. Sam Koshy, Narsing Rao Nandikonda, JJ
A.G. Biotech Laboratories India Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer – Respondent
INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL Nos.91 of 2008 | INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL Nos.92 of 2008



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, A.V.A. Krishna Koundinya
For the Respondents: Bokaro Sapna Reddy, J.V. Prasad

Income derived from tissue culture operations qualifies as 'agricultural income' exempt under Section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provided the process starts with basic agricultural operations on land, and laboratory techniques are used as an advanced mode of plant propagation.

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 2(1A) and Section 10(1) - Agricultural income - Exemption - Whether income from sale of tissue-cultured plants constitutes agricultural income - Assessee used lab-based micro-propagation techniques on mother plants grown on agricultural land - Court held that tissue culture is an advanced method of propagation, not a departure from agriculture - Basic agricultural operations performed on land form the foundation, and scientific laboratory processes are integrated subsequent operations - Income qualifies as agricultural income under Section 2(1A) and is exempt under Section 10(1). (Paras 25, 26, 28)

Facts of the case:
The assessee is engaged in micro-propagation of plants using tissue culture technology. It claimed the income derived from the sale of such plants as 'agricultural income' exempt from tax under Section 10(1) of the Act. The Revenue contention was that the laboratory-based multiplication process is scientific and industrial, lacking the basic agricultural operations on land required by the statutory definition.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the lifecycle of the product begins with cultivating mother plants on land involving basic agricultural operations. The subsequent laboratory process of multiplication is an evolution of conventional plant propagation methods. The Court rejected the Revenue's narrow interpretation, emphasizing that modern scientific technology can coexist with agriculture without losing its character.

Issues: Whether manufacturing plants through laboratory tissue culture, where parent plants are derived from agricultural land, constitutes 'agricultural income' under Section 2(1A) of the IT Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Income derived from plants remains agricultural if it originates from and relies on basic agricultural operations on land. Modern scientific technologies that enhance efficiency and propagation do not denature the activity if they remain integrated with the underlying agricultural cultivation.

Result: Appeals allowed.

Table of Content
1. overview of the case and the core dispute regarding the classification of income from tissue culture. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. appellant's contention that tissue culture is a modern form of agriculture based on land-reliant mother plant cultivation. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. revenue's contention that tissue culture is purely scientific and industrial, failing the statutory agricultural income definition. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. examination of statutory provisions, prior judicial definitions of agricultural operations, and seed production jurisprudence. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
5. court holds that modern scientific techniques in agriculture are an evolution of practice, not a departure from it. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
6. final determination that income from tissue culture is tax-exempt agricultural income. (Para 29 , 30 , 31)

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

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 market. However, the ITAT examined the entire process undertaken by the assessee and noted that through micro-propagation, a single explant can be multiplied into several thousand plants in less than one year, representing a significant technological advancement over traditional agricultural methods. The major part of the activities was performed in a laboratory under sterile conditions using sophisticated scientific technology and research, while land was used only incidentally to grow mother plants from which tissues were extracted.

6. Thus, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top