SESHASAYEE PAPER AND BOARDS LTD.,ERODE vs. DCIT NAMAKKAL CIRCLE, NAMAKKAL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 244A is taxable in the year of receipt, following its own previous decision for the assessee for assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's claim for business expenditure, reversing the lower authorities' disallowance.
What were the facts?
The assessee received interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, which the Assessing Officer (AO) treated as taxable upon receipt, despite the assessee's claim that it was not taxable pending final appellate decisions. The AO added the interest to the assessee's total income.
What were the issues?
Whether interest received under Section 244A is taxable upon receipt, and the allowability of extraordinary business expenditure.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(8)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.
- CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co.551 citing46 ITR 144 · 1962 · SC
- Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT514 citing225 ITR 746 · 1997 · SC
- E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT256 citing26 ITR 27 · 1954 · SC · Read judgment
- Investment Ltd. v. CIT85 citing77 ITR 533 · 1970 · SC
- Berger Paints India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income- Tax, Delhi-V15 citing393 ITR 113 · 2017 · SC
- Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd.8 citing394 ITR 255 · 2017 · HC
- Indian Commerce and Industries Company Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT7 citing213 ITR 533 · 1995 · HC
- Industrial Investment Corp. Ltd., 394 ITR 255 and Electronic Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd. v. DCIT3 citing417 ITR 283 · 2019 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT:
This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem in Appeal No.77/2009-10 dated 31.08.2017. The assessment was framed by the JCIT, Central Circle II(1) i/c, Chennai for the assessment year 2003-04 u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) vide order dated 29.03.2016. 2. The first issue in this appeal 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.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- DCIT, New Delhi vs M/S. Sahara India Power Corporation Ltd…Delhi28 Apr 2023Remanded
Also relies on Investment Ltd. v. CIT and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the issue of whether advances received for work in progress constitute taxable income needs further examination. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after the ass...
- JCIT (OSD) Circle-8(3)(1), Mumbai vs M/S. Tridoss Laboratories Private Ltd…Mumbai20 Oct 2022Partly Allowed
Also relies on E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that for certain parties where principal recovery was doubtful, not charging interest was justified. For other parties, the interest-free advances were covered by the assessee's own funds, making the di...
- M/S. Tridoss Laboratories Private Ltd… vs ACIT Cent. Cir. - 14, MumbaiMumbai20 Oct 2022Partly Allowed
Also relies on E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the assessee was justified in not charging interest on loans to certain parties due to their poor financial condition and doubtful recovery of principal. For other parties, the interest-free advanc...
- Pragati Power Corporation Ltd, New Delhi vs ACIT, Circle 20(1), New DelhiDelhi14 Aug 2024Remanded
Also relies on Investment Ltd. v. CIT and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's method for calculating depreciation was not as per accepted norms and that the assessee had followed the correct method. The Tribunal decided to remit the issue of deprecia...
- JCIT(OSD) Central Circle 1, Jhandewalan vs Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd…Delhi7 Oct 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the deletion of the addition on account of interest on loans and advances by the CIT(A) was justified. It also upheld the deletion of the addition for loss due to theft, as it was substantiated by ...
More judgments on Section 244A
- Shailesh Khodabhai Ramani, Rajkot vs ITO, Ward-2(1)(3), RajkotITA 366/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Shailesh Khodabhai Ramani, Rajkot vs ITO, Ward-2(1)(5), RajkotITA 257/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-12
- Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment… vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax…ITA 3453/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment… vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 6805/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Pratibha Sanjai Srivastava, Ahmedabad vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2)(1), AhmedabadITA 2565/AHD/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2021-2022
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
