M/S C.R.G. INDUSTRIES,BADDI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that disallowances under sections 36(1)(iii) and 40A(3) would enhance the business income eligible for deduction under section 80IC, and therefore, these disallowances would not be taxed separately. The issue of setting off interest expenditure against interest income was restored to the Assessing Officer.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order upholding additions made under sections 36(1)(iii) and 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, and also challenged the denial of deduction under section 80IC on certain income. The assessee argued that these disallowances should reduce the business income eligible for 80IC deduction.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowances under sections 36(1)(iii) and 40A(3) should be considered for deduction under section 80IC, and whether interest expenditure can be set off against interest income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH ‘A’, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & MS.ANNAPURNA GUPTA
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member :
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee
against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals), Shimla (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT
(Appeals)’] dated 19.12.2017, passed u/s 250(6 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) in Appeal
No.IT/119/16-17/Sml relating to assessment year 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1. That the Id Commissioner of Income Tax (appeal) has wrongly upheld the addition of Rs.241200/- under section 36(l)(iii) of Income Tax and also erred by not allowing 100 % deduction under section 80IC of Income Tax on disallowance sustained under section 36(l)(iii) of I.T. Act.
That the learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (appeals) has wrongly upheld the addition of Rs.199064/- on account of additional depreciation on plant & Machinery without appreciating the fact that the resultant business income shall be reduced by additional depreciation & deduction under section 80IC is allowed on net resultant Income after depreciation.
2 AY: 2014-15
That the Id Commissioner of Income Tax (appeal) has wrongly upheld the addition of Rs.429322/- - under section 40A(3)) of Income Tax and also erred by not allowing 100 % deduction under section 80IC of Income Tax on disallowance sustained under section 40A(3) of I.T. Act.
That the Id CIT(A) has erred by not allowing deduction u/s on the resultant business income after disallowances made by assessing officer & confirmed by CIT(A) .
That the Id Commissioner of Income Tax (appeal) has wrongly upheld the disallowance of deduction under section 80IC on interest received amounting to Rs.1029291/- & also erred by not allowing the deduction of interest paid by the appellant.”
So far ground Nos.1 to 4 are concerned, the common
contention of the assessee in respect of each of the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer is that even
though the Assessing Officer had made the impugned
disallowances u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act and further addition
on account of less claim of additional depreciation and thereby reducing the eligible income of the assessee u/s 80IC of the Act and further addition u/s 4A(3) of the Act for making payments in cash of more than Rs.20,000/- yet, the above disallowances will go to add/reduce the business
income of the assessee, which otherwise, is eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. The Ld. counsel for assessee
has further stated it will not have any effect on the tax
liability of the assessee.
We have considered the above submissions of the Ld.
counsel for assessee. So far as the addition made by the Assessing Officer in respect of interest expenditure u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act and addition made on account of claim
of less depreciation on plant & machinery is concerned, we
3 AY: 2014-15
find force in the contention of the Ld. counsel for assessee
that the disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act would add to the business income of the assessee, whereas the addition
made on account of claim of less depreciation will go on reducing the business income of the assessee, which otherwise, admittedly, is eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. In view of the above, the above stated disallowance
cannot be exigible to taxation separately.
So far as the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act is concerned, though on the face of it, it is a sort of penal
provision for which the assessee’s expenditure is disallowed
for making payment of more than the prescribed limit other
than the banking channel, however, the Ld. counsel for assessee has drawn our attention to Circular No.37/2016
dated 2.11.2016 of the CBDT, wherein the CBDT has directed its officers that the disallowance inter-alia made
u/s 40A(3) of the Act, resulting into enhancement of the business income of the assessee will be eligible for deduction under Chapter VI-A, which includes the provisions of section 80IC of the Act. The relevant part of the Circular of the CBDT reproduced as under:
“(ii) If deduction under section 40A(3) of the Act is not allowed, the same would have to be added to the profits of the undertaking on which the assessee would be entitled for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the court in the following case: * Principal CIT, Kanpur vs, Surya Merchants Ltd., I.T. Appeal No. 248 of 2015, May 03, 2016, Allahabad High Court. The above views have attained finality as these judgments of the High Courts of Bombay, Gujarat and Allahabad have been accepted by the Department.
4 AY: 2014-15
In view of the above, the Board has accepted, the settled position that the /disallowances made under sections 32, 40{a)(ia), 40*3), 43B, etc. of the Act and/other specific disallowances, related to the business activity against which the Chapter VI-A deduction has been claimed, result in enhancement of the profits of the eligible business, and that deduction under Chapter VI-A is admissible on the profits so enhanced by the disallowance.”
In view of the above discussion, ground Nos.1 to 4 of the appeal of the assessee are decided with the observation
that enhancement/addition into the income of the assessee
on account of the aforesaid disallowances will not make the assessee liable to pay the additional tax, rather it will
increase/decrease of the business income of the assessee,
which otherwise, is eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. The Assessing Officer is directed to follow the above
directions. Ground Nos.1 to 4 raised by the assessee are accordingly, allowed in above terms.
So far as ground No.5 is concerned, the Ld. counsel for assessee fairly admitted that the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act in respect of interest income,
however, he has pleaded that the assessee may be allowed
the set off of the interest expenditure incurred for earning
of interest income.
However, the learned representatives of both the parties have submitted that this issue has not been adjudicated upon either by the Assessing Officer or by the Ld.CIT(Appeals). We, therefore, restore the issue relating
ground No.5 to the limited extent that if the interest
expenditure incurred by the assessee has nexus with the 5 AY: 2014-15
interest income earned by the assessee, the assessee will be eligible for netting off/setting off of the same against the interest income. The matter is, therefore, restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide this issue afresh on this limited point.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 3/7/2018. (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 3rd July, 2018 *Rati* Copy to:
The Appellant
The Respondent
The CIT(A)
The CIT
The DR
More judgments on Section 36(1)(iii)
- Hcy Industrial Parks Private Limited, Mumbai vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department…ITA 1899/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Hcy Industrial Parks Private Limited, Mumbai vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department…ITA 1899/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Shah Brothers, West Singhbhum vs ACIT/DCIT, Cen Cir-1, RanchiITA 239/RAN/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2017-2018
- Ami Industries, Surendranagar vs The ITO Ward 1, SurendranagarITA 148/RJT/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Ami Industries, Surendranagar vs The ITO Ward 1, SurendranagarITA 148/RJT/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026