Tea / coffee / rubber development account — 40% of profits deductible if deposited with NABARD.
Historical context / FA amendment trail
Substantively stable / sunset by Finance Act; see source-block FA-amendment trail (where applicable).
Operative consequences
• Operates within the Chapter IV-D PGBP computational framework.
• Cross-references operative companion sections.
Case Laws & Commentary
SECTION 33AB — Tea Development Account, Coffee Development Account and Rubber Development Account
Important Case Laws — 1961 Treatise (FA 2026)
Provision in brief: Allows deduction to assessees engaged in growing and manufacturing tea/coffee/rubber, of amounts deposited (within 6 months from end of PY or due date u/s 139(1), whichever earlier) with NABARD in a special account under a scheme approved by Tea/Coffee/Rubber Board. Deduction is LEAST of: (a) amount deposited; or (b) 40% of profits of such business computed before s. 33AB. Withdrawals must be used for specified purposes; non-compliance/withdrawal-misuse triggers reversal under s. 33AB(5)/(6).
Section Commentary
Sector-specific incentive — tea, coffee, rubber
Section 33AB is a deduction-linked incentive for assessees engaged in 'growing and manufacturing' tea, coffee or rubber (the integrated agriculture-cum-industry character is essential — see Carbon and Chemicals India). The assessee deposits monies into a special NABARD account under a scheme approved by the Tea / Coffee / Rubber Board and claims as deduction the lesser of the deposit OR 40% of profits computed under PGBP before this deduction.
Computation base — Williamson Tea question
A perennial litigation under s. 33AB has been whether the '40% of profits' is computed on (i) composite tea income (before Rule 8 60:40 agricultural-non-agricultural apportionment) or (ii) only the 40% taxable portion under Rule 8. Williamson Tea (Gau) and subsequent SC SLP-line have settled that it is the COMPOSITE income — s. 33AB sits within the PGBP computation, which is anterior to Rule 8 segregation. This significantly enlarges the deduction available to tea companies.
Timing — strict 'whichever is earlier'
Deposit must be made (i) within 6 months from the end of PY, OR (ii) before the due date of return u/s 139(1), whichever is EARLIER. Apeejay Tea confirms that deposits made within 6 months but after s. 139(1) due date do NOT qualify — the safe-harbour is the earlier of the two dates. For tea / coffee / rubber companies in non-Tax-Audit category (rare) this can be 31 July of the AY.
Withdrawal and utilisation — anti-abuse
Sub-section (5) and (6): amounts withdrawn must be used only for purposes specified in the scheme (development, replanting, rejuvenation, etc.). Withdrawal for non-specified use, OR closure of business within 8 years of withdrawal, triggers reversal — the misused amount is deemed PGBP income of the year of misuse (Goodricke Group). Hence the deduction is conditional throughout the post-deposit life. The assessee must maintain auditable trail of withdrawals and end-use.
Practical CA pointers
(i) For tea/coffee/rubber clients, plan deposits ahead of return-filing season to avoid the s. 139(1) deadline trap. (ii) Reconcile NABARD account statement with books. (iii) Tag end-use of each withdrawal to a specified purpose in the approved scheme. (iv) For amalgamation / demerger, assess succession of NABARD account; the deduction-trail moves with the business but documentary continuity is critical. (v) Section 33AB is independent of s. 80-IA / 80-IB; double-claim is not barred but the same expenditure cannot be claimed twice.
FA 2026 impact: No FA 2026 amendment to s. 33AB. The 40% cap and NABARD deposit framework continue.
Facts & Issue: Question whether 40% of profits for s. 33AB should be computed on 'composite' tea income (i.e., before applying Rule 8 60:40 agricultural/non-agricultural split) or only on the 40% that constitutes business income.
Held / Ratio: The Gauhati High Court held that deduction u/s 33AB must be computed on the COMPOSITE income (i.e., before Rule 8 apportionment), since s. 33AB sits in the computation under PGBP which is anterior to Rule 8 segregation. This view was endorsed by the SC line in subsequent SLP matters.
Section relevance: Controls the computation base for s. 33AB — composite vs Rule 8 income — major recurring issue for tea companies.
2. Apeejay Tea Ltd. v. CIT
Citation: (1996) 222 ITR 339 (Cal)
Forum: Calcutta High Court
Facts & Issue: Question of timing — whether deposit made within 6 months of PY-end but AFTER s. 139(1) due date qualifies for s. 33AB deduction.
Held / Ratio: Held that the requirement of deposit within 'six months of the end of the previous year OR before the due date for filing return u/s 139(1), whichever is earlier' is mandatory. Where deposit was made within 6 months but after s. 139(1) due date, deduction not available. Strict reading consistent with the incentive-provision principle.
Section relevance: Defines the timing condition under s. 33AB(1) — strict construction of 'whichever is earlier'.
3. CIT v. Goodricke Group Ltd.
Citation: (2010) 326 ITR 90 (Cal)
Forum: Calcutta High Court
Facts & Issue: Withdrawal from NABARD account for purpose other than that specified in the Tea Development scheme — Revenue triggered reversal u/s 33AB(7) and treated the entire withdrawn amount as income of the year of misuse.
Held / Ratio: Held that s. 33AB(7) is automatic — the moment a withdrawal is used for a non-specified purpose, the amount is deemed income of that year. The provision is an anti-abuse mechanism without need for fault. The decision underlines the conditional nature of the deduction.
Section relevance: Authority on the anti-abuse withdrawal reversal mechanism in s. 33AB(7).
4. Assam Brook Ltd. v. CIT
Citation: (2003) 263 ITR 129 (Gau)
Forum: Gauhati High Court
Facts & Issue: Question: does s. 33AB deduction also reduce 'profits' for purposes of computing book profits u/s 115JB or other special provisions?
Held / Ratio: Held that s. 33AB is a deduction under the normal PGBP scheme; for MAT purposes (s. 115JB), book profit is computed on accounting profit per Schedule III, and statutory deductions like s. 33AB do not reduce book profit unless specifically provided for in the MAT adjustments table.
Section relevance: Clarifies the interface between s. 33AB and MAT u/s 115JB — relevant for tax planning by tea/coffee/rubber companies.
5. CIT v. Carbon and Chemicals India Ltd.
Citation: (2010) 327 ITR 470 (Ker)
Forum: Kerala High Court
Facts & Issue: Assessee, a rubber manufacturer, sought deduction u/s 33AB on profits of rubber-product (downstream) business. Revenue confined deduction to profits of growing-and-manufacturing rubber.
Held / Ratio: Held that s. 33AB applies only to assessee 'engaged in the business of growing and manufacturing' tea/coffee/rubber. Downstream rubber processing alone is not 'growing'. Deduction restricted to integrated growing-and-manufacturing income. Reinforces narrow scope of the incentive.
Section relevance: Restricts s. 33AB to integrated agricultural-cum-industrial operations.
6. Assam Co. (India) Ltd. v. CIT
Citation: (2002) 256 ITR 423 (Gau)
Forum: Gauhati High Court
Facts & Issue: Whether deduction u/s 33AB should be computed before or after deducting brought-forward unabsorbed depreciation/business loss.
Held / Ratio: Held that for s. 33AB, profits are to be computed BEFORE setting off brought-forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation but AFTER applying ss. 30 to 43D excluding s. 33AB itself. The 40% cap operates on current-year PGBP profits computed under normal rules.
Section relevance: Controls the order of computation for the 40%-of-profits cap under s. 33AB(1)(b).
Function in the statutory architecture
Tea / coffee / rubber development account — 40% of profits deductible if deposited with NABARD.
Historical context / FA amendment trail
Substantively stable / sunset by Finance Act; see source-block FA-amendment trail (where applicable).
Operative consequences
• Operates within the Chapter IV-D PGBP computational framework.
• Cross-references operative companion sections.
Case Laws & Commentary
SECTION 33AB — Tea Development Account, Coffee Development Account and Rubber Development Account
Important Case Laws — 1961 Treatise (FA 2026)
Provision in brief: Allows deduction to assessees engaged in growing and manufacturing tea/coffee/rubber, of amounts deposited (within 6 months from end of PY or due date u/s 139(1), whichever earlier) with NABARD in a special account under a scheme approved by Tea/Coffee/Rubber Board. Deduction is LEAST of: (a) amount deposited; or (b) 40% of profits of such business computed before s. 33AB. Withdrawals must be used for specified purposes; non-compliance/withdrawal-misuse triggers reversal under s. 33AB(5)/(6).
Section Commentary
Sector-specific incentive — tea, coffee, rubber
Section 33AB is a deduction-linked incentive for assessees engaged in 'growing and manufacturing' tea, coffee or rubber (the integrated agriculture-cum-industry character is essential — see Carbon and Chemicals India). The assessee deposits monies into a special NABARD account under a scheme approved by the Tea / Coffee / Rubber Board and claims as deduction the lesser of the deposit OR 40% of profits computed under PGBP before this deduction.
Computation base — Williamson Tea question
A perennial litigation under s. 33AB has been whether the '40% of profits' is computed on (i) composite tea income (before Rule 8 60:40 agricultural-non-agricultural apportionment) or (ii) only the 40% taxable portion under Rule 8. Williamson Tea (Gau) and subsequent SC SLP-line have settled that it is the COMPOSITE income — s. 33AB sits within the PGBP computation, which is anterior to Rule 8 segregation. This significantly enlarges the deduction available to tea companies.
Timing — strict 'whichever is earlier'
Deposit must be made (i) within 6 months from the end of PY, OR (ii) before the due date of return u/s 139(1), whichever is EARLIER. Apeejay Tea confirms that deposits made within 6 months but after s. 139(1) due date do NOT qualify — the safe-harbour is the earlier of the two dates. For tea / coffee / rubber companies in non-Tax-Audit category (rare) this can be 31 July of the AY.
Withdrawal and utilisation — anti-abuse
Sub-section (5) and (6): amounts withdrawn must be used only for purposes specified in the scheme (development, replanting, rejuvenation, etc.). Withdrawal for non-specified use, OR closure of business within 8 years of withdrawal, triggers reversal — the misused amount is deemed PGBP income of the year of misuse (Goodricke Group). Hence the deduction is conditional throughout the post-deposit life. The assessee must maintain auditable trail of withdrawals and end-use.
Practical CA pointers
(i) For tea/coffee/rubber clients, plan deposits ahead of return-filing season to avoid the s. 139(1) deadline trap. (ii) Reconcile NABARD account statement with books. (iii) Tag end-use of each withdrawal to a specified purpose in the approved scheme. (iv) For amalgamation / demerger, assess succession of NABARD account; the deduction-trail moves with the business but documentary continuity is critical. (v) Section 33AB is independent of s. 80-IA / 80-IB; double-claim is not barred but the same expenditure cannot be claimed twice.
FA 2026 impact: No FA 2026 amendment to s. 33AB. The 40% cap and NABARD deposit framework continue.
Leading Decisions
1. CIT v. Williamson Tea (Assam) Ltd.
Citation: (2011) 339 ITR 197 (Gau) — affirmed in subsequent SLP
Forum: Gauhati High Court
Facts & Issue: Question whether 40% of profits for s. 33AB should be computed on 'composite' tea income (i.e., before applying Rule 8 60:40 agricultural/non-agricultural split) or only on the 40% that constitutes business income.
Held / Ratio: The Gauhati High Court held that deduction u/s 33AB must be computed on the COMPOSITE income (i.e., before Rule 8 apportionment), since s. 33AB sits in the computation under PGBP which is anterior to Rule 8 segregation. This view was endorsed by the SC line in subsequent SLP matters.
Section relevance: Controls the computation base for s. 33AB — composite vs Rule 8 income — major recurring issue for tea companies.
2. Apeejay Tea Ltd. v. CIT
Citation: (1996) 222 ITR 339 (Cal)
Forum: Calcutta High Court
Facts & Issue: Question of timing — whether deposit made within 6 months of PY-end but AFTER s. 139(1) due date qualifies for s. 33AB deduction.
Held / Ratio: Held that the requirement of deposit within 'six months of the end of the previous year OR before the due date for filing return u/s 139(1), whichever is earlier' is mandatory. Where deposit was made within 6 months but after s. 139(1) due date, deduction not available. Strict reading consistent with the incentive-provision principle.
Section relevance: Defines the timing condition under s. 33AB(1) — strict construction of 'whichever is earlier'.
3. CIT v. Goodricke Group Ltd.
Citation: (2010) 326 ITR 90 (Cal)
Forum: Calcutta High Court
Facts & Issue: Withdrawal from NABARD account for purpose other than that specified in the Tea Development scheme — Revenue triggered reversal u/s 33AB(7) and treated the entire withdrawn amount as income of the year of misuse.
Held / Ratio: Held that s. 33AB(7) is automatic — the moment a withdrawal is used for a non-specified purpose, the amount is deemed income of that year. The provision is an anti-abuse mechanism without need for fault. The decision underlines the conditional nature of the deduction.
Section relevance: Authority on the anti-abuse withdrawal reversal mechanism in s. 33AB(7).
4. Assam Brook Ltd. v. CIT
Citation: (2003) 263 ITR 129 (Gau)
Forum: Gauhati High Court
Facts & Issue: Question: does s. 33AB deduction also reduce 'profits' for purposes of computing book profits u/s 115JB or other special provisions?
Held / Ratio: Held that s. 33AB is a deduction under the normal PGBP scheme; for MAT purposes (s. 115JB), book profit is computed on accounting profit per Schedule III, and statutory deductions like s. 33AB do not reduce book profit unless specifically provided for in the MAT adjustments table.
Section relevance: Clarifies the interface between s. 33AB and MAT u/s 115JB — relevant for tax planning by tea/coffee/rubber companies.
5. CIT v. Carbon and Chemicals India Ltd.
Citation: (2010) 327 ITR 470 (Ker)
Forum: Kerala High Court
Facts & Issue: Assessee, a rubber manufacturer, sought deduction u/s 33AB on profits of rubber-product (downstream) business. Revenue confined deduction to profits of growing-and-manufacturing rubber.
Held / Ratio: Held that s. 33AB applies only to assessee 'engaged in the business of growing and manufacturing' tea/coffee/rubber. Downstream rubber processing alone is not 'growing'. Deduction restricted to integrated growing-and-manufacturing income. Reinforces narrow scope of the incentive.
Section relevance: Restricts s. 33AB to integrated agricultural-cum-industrial operations.
6. Assam Co. (India) Ltd. v. CIT
Citation: (2002) 256 ITR 423 (Gau)
Forum: Gauhati High Court
Facts & Issue: Whether deduction u/s 33AB should be computed before or after deducting brought-forward unabsorbed depreciation/business loss.
Held / Ratio: Held that for s. 33AB, profits are to be computed BEFORE setting off brought-forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation but AFTER applying ss. 30 to 43D excluding s. 33AB itself. The 40% cap operates on current-year PGBP profits computed under normal rules.
Section relevance: Controls the order of computation for the 40%-of-profits cap under s. 33AB(1)(b).
— End of Section 33AB Case-Law Note —