The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Avanthi Feeds Limited,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the ITAT's order was inconsistent. While the Tribunal correctly found that the interest income from the fixed deposit for margin money was not derived in the course of or in connection with the business, and that the assessee was not carrying on an investment business, its subsequent reasoning to grant the benefit under Section 80-IA was flawed. The Court reasoned that once it was established that the interest income originated from a margin money deposit and was not business income, it could not be indirectly ploughed back with other business interest income to claim the Section 80-IA benefit. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in granting such relief. The High Court set aside the judgment and order of the ITAT. The issue of whether the interest income was business income was decided in the negative, and the benefit under Section 80-IA was denied.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appellant) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for the assessment year 1999-2000. The dispute concerned whether interest income derived from a fixed deposit made towards margin money could be considered business income for the purpose of claiming a benefit under Section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The ITAT had found that this interest income was not derived in the course of or in connection with the business, as the assessee was not engaged in an investment business. However, the High Court noted an apparent inconsistency in the ITAT's order, where it seemed to indirectly grant the benefit by allowing the interest income to be clubbed with other business interest income.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the learned Tribunal, after finding that the interest income is not business income, can indirectly grant the benefit under Section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The learned counsel for the assessee argued that the ITAT did not treat the specific interest income as business income but rather stated that if net interest is derived in connection with the business, it should be treated as such for Section 80-IA. He contended that the latter part of the ITAT's judgment was not inconsistent with the former. Revenue's contention: The learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) argued that the last two sentences of the ITAT's judgment were inconsistent with the rest of the order. He contended that once the ITAT held the interest income was not business income, it should not have granted the Section 80-IA relief indirectly.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A. NO.82 OF 2007
DATED: 06-02-2014
Between:
The Commissioner of Income Tax Hyderabad-1 … Appellant
And
M/s Avanthi Feeds Limited … Respondent
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A. NO.82 OF 2007
JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
This appeal was admitted on 01-03-2007 by this Court. However, no substantial question of law has been formulated as required under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). Therefore, we formulate the following substantial question of law: “Whether the learned Tribunal, after coming to the fact finding that the particular interest income is not a business income, can give benefit under Section 80-IA of the Act in an indirect way ?” 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 17-03-2006 in relation to the assessment year 1999-2000. In this case, the issue is whether the interest income derived from a fixed deposit towards margin money can be said to be a business income in order to get benefit under Section 80-IA of the Act. The learned Tribunal, on facts, found that this income was not derived in the course of business or in connection with the business and it was derived from a fixed deposit and that the assessee is not carrying on business of any investment. 3. Sri J.V. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, says that the last two sentences of the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal are inconsistent with the other portion of the judgment. When the learned Tribunal held that this particular income
is not a business income, he contended that the relief under Section 80-IA of the Act should not have been granted and hence it was not open to the learned Tribunal to grant the relief in an indirect way. 4. Sri Y. Ratnakar, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, says that the learned Tribunal has not treated this particular income as business income, but it said in totality that if the net interest is derived by the assessee in connection with the business, it should be treated as interest income from the business as required under Section 80-IA of the Act. He therefore contends that the last portion of the judgment and order is not inconsistent with the other portion of the judgment.
We have heard the counsel and we have seen the fact findings of the learned Tribunal. There is no dispute that the interest income has been derived from a fixed deposit of margin money and the assessee is not carrying on investment business. According to the learned Tribunal also, the interest income cannot be said to have been derived in connection with or in the course of business. In order to give benefit under Section 80-IA of the Act, the precondition is that the interest income should be derived in connection with the business. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal held so correctly and there is no quarrel with this finding by any of the parties. But the last portion of the judgment and order, in our view, is inconsistent with the former portion of the judgment. According to us, once it was held that the interest income was derived from a deposit of margin money, it cannot be ploughed back with other interest income of the whole business, meaning thereby, the earlier portion of the judgment rendered by the learned Tribunal has been negatived by it in an indirect way by including this portion of interest income with other interest incomes of the business. Therefore, while answering the above question, it is held that the learned Tribunal was not justified in granting such relief and hence, we set aside the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
______________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ
_____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 06-02-2014 Svv
More judgments on Section 80-IA
- ACIT-Circle 6(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited, MumbaiITA 7767/MUM/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- ACIT-Circle6(1)(1) Mumbai., Mumbai vs Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited, MumbaiITA 7766/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- DCIT, Central Circle- 2(4), Chennai vs Eco Protection Engineers Private Limited…ITA 597/CHNY/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited, Kolkata vs DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), KolkataITTPA 12/KOL/2026[2022-2023]Status: Heard11 Sept 2026AY 2022-2023
- State Bank of India, Mumbai vs ACIT-Circle- 2(2)(1), MumbaiITA 3429/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Md. Junaid vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S Sanjeevini Health Care vs. M/S.Vijayalakshmi And AssociatesKarnataka · 4 Nov 2026
- Trilok Chandra vs. State Tax OfficerUttarakhand · 4 Nov 2026
- Basant Ballabh Punetha vs. State Of UttarakhandUttarakhand · 4 Nov 2026
- Satyavan vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 4 Nov 2026
