ANUBHAV PLANTATIONS LTD. IN LIQUIDATION),CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(1), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The AO is to verify if any expenditure was claimed for earning interest income and if it's allowable under 'income from other sources'.
What were the facts?
The assessee company, under liquidation, filed a NIL return. The Assessing Officer disallowed expenditure for non-deduction of TDS, which the CIT(A) shifted to disallowance under Section 57(iii) as not related to interest income. The assessee claimed the expenditure was capital in nature and not claimed in income expenditure accounts.
What were the issues?
Whether expenditure claimed by the assessee was allowable as a deduction against interest income, and if it was properly claimed in the income expenditure accounts.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai in 1/2015-16 dated 29.03.2018 for the Assessment Year 2012-13.
2 -: 2. Shri S. Parthasarathy, Chartered Accountant represented on behalf of the Assessee and Ms. R. Anita, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue.
It was submitted by the learned Authorized Representative that the assessee is a company under liquidation. It was a submission that the assessee had e-filed his return of income for the relevant Assessment Year on 04.09.2012 admitting income at ‘NIL’. It was a submission that the Assessing Officer has disallowed an amount of Rs.48,22,936/- representing certain expenditure incurred by the assessee on the ground that no TDS has been deducted u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was a submission that on appeal the learned CIT(A) had decided the issue of the non-deduction of TDS in favour of the assessee but had proceeded to hold that the assessee had only interest income and therefore the income was liable to tax under the head “income from other sources” and the expenditure claimed to Rs.48,22,936/- did not relate to the earnings of the interest income and therefore disallowed the same u/s.57(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was a submission of the learned Authorized Representative that the assessee has not claimed on the said claimed expenditure of Rs.48,22,936/- in so far as it was a capital expenditure. It was fairly agreed by the learned Authorized Representative that he had no objection if the issue was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for examination and to examine if any expenditure had been incurred for the purpose of earning interest income and if there were any expenditures for the purpose of earning of interest income and such 3 -: expenditure has been claimed by the assessee, then the same was liable to be allowable.
In reply, the learned Departmental Representative supported the order the learned Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submission and perused the materials available on record.
A perusal of the facts in the present case shows that the Assessing Officer had originally disallowed an amount of Rs.48,22,936/- on account of non-deduction of TDS. The learned CIT(A) shifted the disallowance from the non-deduction of TDS to non-allowable u/s.57(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee claims that he has not claimed the expenditure in his income expenditure accounts. The income expenditure accounts are not before us. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication and verification as to the expenditure, if any, claimed by the assessee in his income expenditure accounts. If the assessee, has claimed any specific expenditure, then it is open to the Assessing Officer to examine whether the same has been incurred for the purpose of maintaining the status of the company and whether it has been an expenditure for earning the interest income and whether the said expenditure are allowable under the head “income from other sources”. Admittedly, the assessee has offered interest income which is accessible under “income from other sources”.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 11th December, 2019 in Chennai.
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026