DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GAJRAJ COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that interest on NPAs cannot be brought to tax based on the real income theory. Notional income is not taxable, and Section 43D does not mandate accrual basis for NBFCs regarding bad debts.
What were the facts?
The assessee, an NBFC, had non-performing assets (NPAs) on which the Assessing Officer calculated notional interest and added it to income. The AO argued that Section 43D did not apply to NBFCs, requiring interest recognition on accrual.
What were the issues?
Whether interest on non-performing assets (NPAs) for an NBFC is taxable on an accrual basis, or if the real income theory applies.
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.
- CIT v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd.125 citing196 Taxmann 169 · 2011 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara]
order : April 26th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM :- This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 7, Kolkata, (ld. CIT(A)) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (the ‘Act’), dt. 30/01/2018, for the Assessment Year 2014-15.
After hearing rival contentions, we find that the assessee is a non-banking financial corporation (NBFC) and it has no recognised interest income from non- performing asset (NPA). The Assessing Officer calculated notional interest @ 12% on the said amount of Rs. 60,76,61,152/- and added as income interest of Rs.7,29,19,338/- on the ground that the same has accrued to the assessee. He referred to Section 43D of the Act and held that as a NBFC does not fall within the purview of Section 43D of the Act. He held that the interest income on sticky loans have to be recognised on accrual basis. On appeal, the ld. First Appellate Authority applied the real income theory and deleted the addition.
Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us.
Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Gajraj Commercial Pvt. Ltd 4. The undisputed fact is that the advance to the five concerns in question totalling to Rs.60,76,61,152/- are sticky loans, and are NPAs. The issue is whether the interest on NPA can be brought to tax. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. [2011] 196 Taxman 169 (Delhi) held that interest on NPAs cannot be brought to tax by applying real income theory. It is well settled that notional income cannot be brought to tax. Hence we find not infirmity in the order of the ld. First Appellate Authority and uphold the same. Section 43D of the Act, referred to by the Assessing Officer has no relevance to the case on hand. This section gives certain concessions to certain category of assessees. It does not lay down anything contrary to the real income theory. Recently the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Bajaj Finance Ltd. in of 2017; judgment dt. 2nd April, 2017, held that: “Even though the special provision in s. 43D for taxing interest income on NPAs on receipt basis does not apply to NBFCs, it does not mean that NBFCs have to offer interest on bad or doubtful debts to tax on accrual basis. Such interest is not taxable on the real income theory”
Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, dismiss this appeal of the revenue.
In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Kolkata, the 26th day of April, 2019. Sd/- Sd/- [S.S. Godara] [J. Sudhakar Reddy] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated :26.04.2019 {SC SPS} Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Gajraj Commercial Pvt. Ltd Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. M/s. Gajraj Commercial Pvt. Ltd 37A, Bentinck Street Room No. 314 Kolkata – 700 001 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Kolkata 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.
More judgments on Section 43D
- DCIT, Jabalpur vs Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, SeoniITA 161/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Income Tax Officer, Ward-Parwanoo, Parwanoo vs Jogindra Central Co-Operative Bank Limited…ITA 123/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 Jul 2026AY 2014-15
- Income Tax Officer, Parwanoo vs Jogindra Central Co-Operative Bank Limited…ITA 119/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: Disposed14 Jul 2026AY 2013-14
- Income Tax Officer, Parwanoo vs Jogindera Central Co-Operative Bank…ITA 118/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: Disposed14 Jul 2026AY 2012-13
- M/S. Sumathi Bai Industrial Finance India… vs DCIT, CC-3(1), ChennaiITA 3279/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed26 May 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026