M/S SANKHLA VINYL PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the claim about interest income being from margin money for LCs was made for the first time. Since the purpose and nexus with business were not examined by lower authorities, the matter was set aside for fresh examination.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80IB for interest income earned from margin money kept with banks for Letter of Credit facilities. The AO and CIT(A) denied this deduction, viewing interest income as not derived from manufacturing.
What were the issues?
Whether interest income earned from margin money deposits for LCs is eligible for deduction under Section 80IB as income derived from the industrial undertaking.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)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.
- 356 ITR 399 (MP) 5. CIT v. Bhawal Synthetics (India), Udaipur8 citing297 CTR 104 · 2017 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B’’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI B.R BASKARAN & SMT. BEENA PILLAI
O R D E R Shri B.R Baskaran, Accountant Member
The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 28-09-2017 passed by Ld CIT(A)-6, Bengaluru and it relates to the assessment year 2010-11. All the grounds urged by the assessee relate to a single issue, viz., whether the Ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the denial of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act in respect of interest income received by the assessee.
We heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of PVC and Polyolefin compounds. The assessee is eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee has also claimed deduction u/s 80IB of the Act in respect of interest income. The AO took the view that the interest income cannot be considered to have been derived from manufacture or production of articles or things and the said income does not have nexus with the profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking. Accordingly he rejected the claim for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act in respect of interest income. The Ld CIT(A) confirmed the same.
The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee has earned interest income from the margin money kept with banks for obtaining Letter of Credit facilities. Accordingly he submitted that the interest income is intricately connected with the carrying on business and hence the same should be assessed as income from business only. Accordingly he submitted that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act in respect of interest income also. In support of his contentions, the Ld A.R placed his reliance on the following decisions rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court:- (a) CIT vs. M/s Chinnanachi Muthu Construction & Co. (I.T.No.615 of 2007 dated 18-01-2011. (b) M/s Hubli Electricity Supply Co. Vs. DCIT (ITA Nos.100025 to 100027/2017 C/W dated 09-02-2018).
On the contrary, the Ld D.R placed his reliance on the following case laws to contend that the interest income is not eligible for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act.
(a) CIT vs. Bhawal Synthetics (India)(2017)(297 CTR 104)(Raj) (b) Asian Cement Industries vs. ITAT (2013)(261 CTR 551)(J & K)
We notice that the submission of the assessee that the interest income has been earned from the deposits kept for obtaining Letter of Credit facility is made for the first time before the Tribunal. A perusal of the case laws relied upon by both the parties would show that the treatment of interest income would depend upon the purpose of keeping deposits with banks. Since the purpose of keeping deposits with banks and their nexus with the business carried on by the assessee have not been examined by the tax authorities, we are of the view that this issue requires fresh examination at the end of the AO. Accordingly we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and restore all the matters to his file for examining them afresh. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the AO may take appropriate decision in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 25th September, 2019.
More judgments on Section 80IB
- D.C.I.T., Circle - 10(1), Kolkata vs M/S. Berger Paints India Ltd., KolkataITA 740/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- Tasa Foods Private Limited, Bangalore vs DCIT, Circle-7(1)(1), BengaluruITA 2908/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed7 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Uflex Limited, Delhi vs DCIT/ACIT Cen Cir-II, NoidaITTPA 280/DEL/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed21 Aug 2026AY 2022-23
- Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs Uflex Limited, DelhiITTPA 272/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed21 Aug 2026AY 2020-21
- Uflex Limited, Pamposh Enclave, Greater… vs DCIT/ACIT Cen Cir-II, NoidaITTPA 260/DEL/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Aug 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026