Doctrine of merger and tea income computation: export deduction applies before apportionment under rule 8.

The doctrine of merger operates where a High Court judgment on the stage of section 80HHC deduction is set aside on appeal on merits, so the earlier view cannot survive as an independent binding precedent. For composite tea income computed under rule 8, export deduction under section 80HHC is allowed at the computation stage before the statutory apportionment into agricultural and non-agricultural components. The legal fiction in rule 8 is confined to its limited purpose and does not postpone admissible deductions under the Act. The assessee therefore succeeds, and the export deduction is to be given effect first.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the earlier High Court ruling on the stage of allowance of deduction under section 80HHC survived after the Supreme Court set aside the judgment on appeal and, if not, whether that ruling could still be treated as binding; (ii) whether deduction under section 80HHC in respect of export profits from tea is allowable before apportionment of the composite income under rule 8 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.

Issue (i): Whether the earlier High Court ruling on the stage of allowance of deduction under section 80HHC survived after the Supreme Court set aside the judgment on appeal and, if not, whether that ruling could still be treated as binding.

Analysis: The operative challenge before the Supreme Court had been decided on appeal on merits, and the High Court judgment formed part of the subject-matter carried in appeal. Once the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was invoked and the judgment below was set aside on merits, the doctrine of merger operated on the entire judgment, not on isolated portions selected issue-wise. The earlier High Court view on the stage of deduction could not survive independently as a binding precedent after the superior court's appellate decision.

Conclusion: The earlier High Court ruling on that aspect did not remain enforceable as a binding precedent.

Issue (ii): Whether deduction under section 80HHC in respect of export profits from tea is allowable before apportionment of the composite income under rule 8 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.

Analysis: Income from sale of tea grown and manufactured in India is first to be computed as business income under rule 8, and the deductions admissible under the Income-tax Act apply at the stage of computation of that income. Section 80HHC is a deduction in computing total income and is not excluded merely because the income is later subjected to the 40:60 apportionment under rule 8. The legal fiction in rule 8 is confined to the statutory purpose for which it is created, and the computation of composite tea income must therefore allow the export deduction before the final bifurcation into agricultural and non-agricultural components.

Conclusion: Deduction under section 80HHC is allowable before apportionment under rule 8.

Final Conclusion: The correct method is to compute the composite tea income by allowing the export deduction first and then apportioning the resulting income under rule 8; the assessee succeeds and the Tribunal's view is not sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: For composite tea income computed under rule 8, deductions admissible under the Income-tax Act, including section 80HHC, are to be given before the statutory apportionment into agricultural and non-agricultural income, and an appellate judgment set aside on merits merges in the superior court's decision.

---