PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 vs. S A L STEEL LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal had not committed any error in deleting the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The reasoning was based on the fact that the deletion of similar disallowances for earlier assessment years (2009-10 and 2010-11) concerning interest paid on the very same loans and advances had been confirmed and had attained finality. The ITAT had relied on its prior decision in the assessee's own case for those years. The Court found no substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order. The operative direction was to dismiss the Tax Appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.
What were the facts?
The assessee, SAL Steel Ltd., filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2011-12, declaring a total income after set-off of brought forward loss. The assessment was finalized under Section 143(3) with a total book profit of Rs. 1,78,81,092. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 92,04,000 claimed under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee appealed to the CIT (Appeals), who deleted the disallowance concerning loans and advances given to six parties, considering previous assessment years. The Revenue appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the deletion of the disallowance. The High Court is hearing a Tax Appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) against the ITAT's order.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law in deleting the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act? Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. However, it notes that the CIT (Appeals) deleted the disallowance, and the ITAT confirmed this deletion. The ITAT relied on its co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11, where similar facts led to relief for the assessee and no justification for disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii). Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, through its counsel, did not dispute the factual matrix recorded by the lower authorities. The appeal is filed on the proposed question of law regarding the deletion of the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH)
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench ‘d’ in ITA No.1431/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, by which the learned Tribunal has confirmed the order passed by the learned CIT (Appeals) deleting disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, the Revenue has preferred the present appeal with the following proposed question of law:- “Whether
the Appellate
Tribunal
has substantially erred in law in deleting the disallowance u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act?” C/TAXAP/700/2018 ORDER
The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:-
1 The assessee filed its return of income on 26.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs.2,25,694/- after set-off of brought forward loss of Rs.7,96,76,896/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny and the assessment was finalized under Section 143(3) of the Act assessing total book profit under Section 115JB of Rs.1,78,81,092/-. It is required to be noted that while finalizing the assessment,
the Assessing
Officer
disallowed Rs.92,04,000/- claimed under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act.
2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Assessing Officer disallowing interest of Rs.92,04,000/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and other additions /disallowances, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT (Appeals). The loans and advances given to six parties concerned, viz. Mahavir Enterprises, Surat (RM), Mahavir Enterprises and Shree Mahavir Alloys (RM) were considered with respect to earlier Assessment Years and pursuant to the order passed by the learned CIT (Appeals), the said disallowance was deleted. Consequently, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, more particularly the effect given with respect to interest paid on the aforesaid loans and C/TAXAP/700/2018 ORDER advances for the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11, the learned CIT (Appeals) deleted disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. At this stage, it is required to be noted that when the learned CIT (Appeals) deleted the aforesaid disallowance, the appeals by the Department against the decision of the CIT (Appeals) for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 were pending. However, subsequently, the appeals preferred by the Revenue came to be dismissed and the same has attained finality. On an appeal preferred by the Revenue and observing in paras-4 as under, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue for Assessment Year 2011-12 and has confirmed the deletion by the Assessing Officer of disallowance under Section 36(1) (iii) of the Act:- “4. On these facts, we take note of the decision of the Co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in assessee’s own case concerning 2009-10 & 2010-11 in ITA No.2013/Ahd/2013 and ors order dated 18.01.2017 where in the similar facts, the relief was granted to the assessee and no justification was found in resorting to disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act.”
The factual matrix recorded by the learned CIT (Appeals) and the learned Tribunal is not in dispute and as such, not disputed by Shri Bhatt, learned Counsel C/TAXAP/700/2018 ORDER appearing on behalf of the appellate-Revenue.
Under the circumstances and more particularly when with respect to interest paid on loans and advances to the parties in the year under consideration, the deletion of disallowance for the earlier year with respect to the interest paid on very loans and advances came to be confirmed and the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act was deleted, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error in deleting the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. No substantial question of law arises in the present Tax Appeal. The present Tax Appeal deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. (M.R. SHAH, J) (A.Y. KOGJE, J) SHITOLE
More judgments on Section 36(1)(iii)
- Hcy Industrial Parks Private Limited, Mumbai vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department…ITA 1899/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Hcy Industrial Parks Private Limited, Mumbai vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department…ITA 1899/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Shah Brothers, West Singhbhum vs ACIT/DCIT, Cen Cir-1, RanchiITA 239/RAN/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2017-2018
- Ami Industries, Surendranagar vs The ITO Ward 1, SurendranagarITA 148/RJT/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Ami Industries, Surendranagar vs The ITO Ward 1, SurendranagarITA 148/RJT/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026