MALAYALAM COMMUNICATIONS LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT, TRIVANDRUM
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the interest income from fixed deposits made for availing credit facilities should be examined by the Assessing Officer to determine if it qualifies as business income. The Tribunal also acknowledged that such income, if assessed as income from other sources, is eligible for set-off against unabsorbed depreciation.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed certain amounts as business expenditure, which were treated as capital expenditure by the revenue. The assessee also earned interest income from fixed deposits made for business purposes. The High Court decided two issues in favour of the assessee and remitted the issue of interest income to the Tribunal for reconsideration.
What were the issues?
Whether interest income from fixed deposits made for business purposes is to be treated as business income or income from other sources, and its eligibility for set-off against unabsorbed depreciation.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P.) Ltd.24 citing59 ITR 555 · 1966 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM:
This appeal was originally disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 21/11/2014.
The assessee took up the matter before the High Court by raising the following
questions:
(i) Whether the disallowance of Rs.10,00,000/- which the assessee claimed as business expenditure, could have been treated as a capital expenditure?
(ii) Whether the renting of OB van and rental value received for the same be taken as income from other sources?
(iii) Whether the interest income obtained by the assessee from the fixed deposits can be termed as income from other sources?
The High Court, inter alia, vide judgment dated 13/09/2018 in ITA No. 145/2015
decided the first two issues in favour of the assessee. The third issue was remitted to
the file of the Tribunal by observing as follows:
“4. Question No. (iii) is on the interest income, which the assessee contends, is from Fixed Deposits made for the purpose of carrying on the business itself. Annexure-F is the certificate issued by the Bank, certifying that certain Fixed Deposits are part of securities submitted for sanction of credit facilities. It is also the submission of the assessee that there were other Fixed Deposits made for the purpose of Export Purchase Credit Guarantee Scheme for import of equipments and machineries, again for the purpose of business purposes. The Tribunal has merely relied on a Supreme Court judgment and approved the disallowance. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal has to re-consider the matter on facts. Hence, we decline to consider question No. (iii) framed by us and require the Tribunal to address the facts for arriving at a decision. We also note that despite a request having been made, there is no permission for set off under section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as against the unabsorbed depreciation which, in any event, is permissible as has been held in CIT vs. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P) Ltd. (1966) (59 ITR 555) (SC).
We, hence, partly allow the appeal and remand the matter to the Tribunal for considering the specific issue noticed above. There shall be no order as to costs.”
Hence, the issue came up for fresh adjudication.
The Ld. AR drew our attention to the true copy of the certificate issued by
Dhanalakshmi Bank, giving details of the Fixed Deposits made for the purpose of
obtaining bank guarantee and cash credit facilities for working capital. The Ld. AR also
furnished details of the various fixed deposits held by the assessee with Dhanalakshmi
Bank and Indian Bank as on 31/03/2007, showing the amounts of the fixed deposits
and the interest earned thereon. The Ld. AR also produced details of the business loss and the unabsorbed depreciation of the previous assessment years upto 2004-05. He
also submitted that certain deposits were made on the insistence of the Bank to avail
credit facility from the Bank.
The Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. Before us, the
assessee has furnished the details of fixed deposits and submitted that they were made
for the purpose of business so as to avail credit facility from the Bank. In our opinion,
these documents are required to be examined by the Assessing Officer so as to decide
whether these deposits were made on the insistence of the Bank to get credit facility
and if it is made on the insistence of the Bank for the purpose of granting credit facility,
the interest income from such deposits is to be considered as business income.
Further, it was submitted that even if the income is assessed as income from other
sources, the said income is qualified to be set off u/s. 32(2) of the I.T. Act against
unabsorbed depreciation. For this proposition, the assessee relied on the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P) Ltd. (1966) (59
ITR 555) (SC). In our opinion, on this issue there is no dispute as this was already
considered by the High Court vide judgment cited supra. Hence, this ground of appeal
of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 21st June, 2019
sd/- sd/- (GEORGE GEORGE K.) (CHANDRA POOJARI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Place: Kochi Dated: 21st June, 2019 GJ Copy to: 1. Malayalam Communications, 61, Chandragiri Kuravankonam, Kowdiar P.O., Trivandrum. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1, Trivandrum. 3. The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals), Trivandrum. 4. The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Trivandrum. 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., Cochin Bench, Cochin. 6. Guard File. By Order
(ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) I.T.A.T., Cochin
More judgments on Section 32(2)
- Karnavati Rolling Mills Private Limited… vs The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 1714/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Sree Kumar Textiles Private Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 3437/CHNY/2025[2011-2012]Status: Disposed9 Sept 2026AY 2011-2012
- Vts Tf Air Systems Private Limited… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(1)(1)…ITTPA 710/BANG/2026[2022-2023]Status: Disposed27 Aug 2026AY 2022-2023
- Gluhend India Private Limited, Delhi vs DCIT - 3(1)(1), MumbaiITA 271/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed27 Aug 2026AY 2022-23
- Shree Shiv Vijay Processors Private… vs Income Tax Officer Ward 2 1 3, SuratITA 1241/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed20 Aug 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026