SHEW KISSEN BHATTAR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALCUTTA
What did the Supreme Court hold?
The Supreme Court held that the assessee was entitled to deduct only simple interest, not compound interest, under Section 9(1)(iv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Court reasoned that the law permits deduction of the 'amount of any interest on such mortgage or charge.' While the original capital charge attracted simple interest at 6.5%, the additional interest that accrued due to the failure to pay interest on due dates became part of the principal. This 'interest on interest' could not be considered part of the original capital charge. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to deduct only the interest payable on the actual capital charge, not the additional interest accrued on unpaid interest. The Court further observed that interpreting 'any interest' to include compound interest would be fallacious and would lead to tax evasion, as it would allow debtors to benefit from their own omissions by not paying interest regularly. The High Court's interpretation was affirmed. The appeals were dismissed.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a trustee of a house property, claimed a deduction for compound interest for the assessment year 1956-57. This claim was based on a consent decree passed on April 19, 1928, in a title suit concerning the property. The decree stipulated that the property owner was to pay Rs. 8,61,000/- to the plaintiff, with compound interest at 6.5% per annum with yearly rests on the unpaid amount. The payment schedule involved an initial payment, followed by monthly installments and a final balance payment. However, the terms were not fully adhered to, leading to defaults in interest payments. After a payment on February 19, 1945, Rs. 2,70,535/- remained outstanding. The assessee calculated the total interest payable as Rs. 38,221/- for the assessment year 1956-57, based on the compound interest clause. The Income Tax Officer allowed a deduction of only Rs. 18,000/-, representing simple interest at 6.5% per annum. The assessee's appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal were dismissed. The High Court also ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that only simple interest was allowable. The matter was then appealed to the Supreme Court.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a true construction of the words 'interest payable on such capital' in section 9(1)(iv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the amount of interest allowable to the assessee was Rs. 18,000/- (simple interest) or Rs. 38,221/- (compound interest)? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the law permits the deduction of 'any interest' paid on capital borrowed or charged, and this phrase includes compound interest. They relied on the consent decree which stipulated payment of compound interest. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue contended that only simple interest was deductible. They argued that compound interest is not interest on the 'capital charge' but rather interest on interest, which had become part of the principal due to non-payment. They also submitted that allowing compound interest would open avenues for tax evasion.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 9(1)(iv)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
A B c D E F G H 567 SHEW KISSEN BHATTAR v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALCUTTA MQJ!ch 5, 19.73 [K. S. HEGDE, P. JAGANll!OHAN f<.EDDY AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.] Jndic.·n Jnco1ne Tax Act, 1922, s. 9( 1) (iv)-Scope of-Consent de~ cree in respect of property involved Stipulating pay111ent of co1npounJ interest by assessee-Assessee claiming deduction of compound interest- I.Interpretation of expressions "amount of any interest on a.uch 1nortgage or charge" and "interest payable on such. capital' in s. 9(1) (iv)-Held assesse~ entitled to deduct only si111ple interest payable.
The assessee, a trustee of . the house property, claimed deduc- tion of compound interest in terms of a consent decree passed in April 19, 1928, in a title suit in respect of the property. .Under the terms of that decree, the property was held to belong to the first defendant who. however, was to make a payment of Rs. 8,61,000/- to the plaintiff therein. 'f!iere was stipulafion for the payment of compound interest on the unpaid amount @ 6} with yearly rest..
It was further provided therein that Rs. 4,25,000/. was to be paid on !he execution of the tenns o
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
