KUDALE AGRO FOODS,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-14, PUNE, PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable if the recipient NBFCs have included the interest income in their returns and paid taxes. For one NBFC, the matter was remanded for verification.
What were the facts?
The assessee firm, engaged in trading Jaggery Products, paid interest on unsecured loans to four NBFCs without deducting TDS. The Assessing Officer disallowed the interest expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is warranted when the recipient has accounted for the interest income and paid taxes, despite non-deduction of TDS by the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 40(a)(ia),Section 194A,Section 197A(1A),Section 201(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.
- Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT576 citing293 ITR 226 · 2007 · SC
- Karwat Steel Traders v. ITO13 citing145 ITD 370 · 2013 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM :
The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14.06.2024 of the Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Delhi [“Addl./JCIT(A)”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2017-18. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm engaged in the business of trading Jaggery Products. For AY 2017-18, the assessee filed its return of income on 20.09.2017 declaring total income of Rs.46,69,050/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly notice(s) u/s 143(2)/142(1) of the Income
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.
More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Cdg Petchem Limited, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward - 1(1), HyderabadITA 1900/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-2019
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026