THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S SUNDARAM BNJ PARIBAS,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on the ground of low tax effect, in light of the submissions made by the Revenue's counsel and CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted that the substantial questions of law framed in the appeal were left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit fixed in the circular, for hearing and decision on merits. No costs were awarded. The ITAT's findings on the eligibility of interest for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) and the computation method (net vs. gross interest) were not adjudicated upon by the High Court.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, filed an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against an order dated 19.12.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'D' Bench. The appeal pertains to assessment year 2005-06 and concerns M/s. Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance. The dispute revolves around the eligibility of interest earned on Statutory Liquidity Ratio (SLR) investments for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the method of computation of this deduction (gross vs. net interest). The respondent assessee did not appear before the High Court.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in holding that the interest earned by the assessee company for the SLR investments is eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in directing the Assessing Officer to use "net interest" as against "gross interest" for the purpose of computation of deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Arguments: Not recorded. Revenue's Arguments: The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant (Revenue) submitted that the appeal was not being pursued due to low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore. The tax effect in this case was stated to be below this threshold.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
TCA.No.681 of 2018 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 28.08.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.681 of 2018 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ...Appellant Vs M/s.Sundaram BNP Paribas, Home Finance, Sundaram Towers, 46, Whites Road, Chennai - 600 014. PAN: AADCS4826J ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 19.12.2016 made in ITA.No.1981/MDS/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench for the assessment year 2005-06. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, SSC assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani For Respondent : No appearance JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J.) We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel, assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue. 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.681 of 2018 2.This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 19.12.2016 made in ITA.No.1981/MDS/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench for the assessment year 2005-06. 3.The appeal has been filed by raising the following substantial questions of law : “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ITAT was right in holding that the interest earned by the assessee company for the SLR investments is eligible for deduction u/s.36(1)(viii)? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in directing the Assessing Officer to "net interest" as against "gross interest" for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s.36(1)(viii)?" 4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the above appeal is not pursued by the Revenue on account of the low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.8.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. By the said Circular, the monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court has been increased to Rs.1 Crore. It is further submitted that the tax effect in this case is less than the threshold limit. 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.681 of 2018 5.In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial questions of law framed are left open. In the event the tax effect is above the threshold limit fixed in the said circular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to make a mention to this Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. (T.S.S.J.) (V.B.S.J.) 28.08.2019 cse Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes (or) No To 1.M/s.Sundaram BNP Paribas, Home Finance, Sundaram Towers, 46, Whites Road, Chennai - 600 014. 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench. 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.681 of 2018 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J. AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J. cse TCA.No.681 of 2018 28.08.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 36(1)(viii)
- Sundaram Home Finance Ltd., Chennai vs ITO, Corporate Ward-6(1), ChennaiITA 1996/CHNY/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Sundaram Home Finance Limited, Chennai vs CIT, ChennaiITA 1778/CHNY/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Sundaram Home Finance Limited, Chennai vs CIT, ChennaiITA 1777/CHNY/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Bandhan Bank Limited, Kolkata vs DCIT-6(1), KolkataITA 965/KOL/2026[2018-2019]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2018-2019
- Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Small Industries Development Bank of India…ITA 870/MUM/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed7 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026