Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd, Madras v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras

6 SCC 117Supreme Court of India1997#3489 most cited

What is Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd, Madras v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras authority for?

Interest earned on investments made from the principal amount of a fund, even if the principal itself was not brought to tax, can be brought to tax.

34

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2001 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd v. CIT · Section 10(20A) · Section 10(20) · Infrastructure Development and Reserve Fund · IDRF · taxation of interest · taxation of principal

Sections most often in play

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(20A)Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12Section 12ASection 12AA
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 10(20a)advancement of general public utilitysection 58section 10(20)purposive interpretationsection 12aa(3)section 60section 13(8)section 13(3)section 13(1)(c)corpus fundproviso to section 2(15)

Judgments citing Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd, Madras v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras

Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad vs. ACIT (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 89/ALLD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…decision by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation, which in turn, has been delivered on the basis of the findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd v. CIT (1997) 6 SCC 117. Therefore, the only judgment rendered by any of the Tribunals with regard to the nature and ownership of the Infrastructure Development and Reserve Fund (IDRF), is the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi Bench in the case of Saharanpur Development Authority. Here too, we observed that the basic question before the Hon’ble Delhi Bench was whether, if the…

Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad vs. ACIT (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 88/ALLD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…decision by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation, which in turn, has been delivered on the basis of the findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd v. CIT (1997) 6 SCC 117. Therefore, the only judgment rendered by any of the Tribunals with regard to the nature and ownership of the Infrastructure Development and Reserve Fund (IDRF), is the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi Bench in the case of Saharanpur Development Authority. Here too, we observed that the basic question before the Hon’ble Delhi Bench was whether, if the…

Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad vs. ACIT (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 87/ALLD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…decision by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation, which in turn, has been delivered on the basis of the findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd v. CIT (1997) 6 SCC 117. Therefore, the only judgment rendered by any of the Tribunals with regard to the nature and ownership of the Infrastructure Development and Reserve Fund (IDRF), is the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi Bench in the case of Saharanpur Development Authority. Here too, we observed that the basic question before the Hon’ble Delhi Bench was whether, if the…

M/S Ayodhya Faizabad Developement Authority, Faizabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

ITA 520/LKW/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh Mradul AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ghiyasuddin CIT(DR) & Sh.Mazahar Akram, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 58

…y the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation(supra), which in turn, has been delivered on the basis of the findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd v. CIT (1997) 6 SCC 117. Therefore, the only judgment the ownership of the Infrastructure Development and Reserve Fund (IDRF), among the decisions cited by the learned AR is the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi Bench in the case of Saharanpur Development Authority. Here too, we observe that the basic question before the Hon’ble Delhi Bench was whether, if the principal a…

M/S Ayodhya Faizabad Developement Authority, Faizabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

ITA 518/LKW/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh Mradul AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ghiyasuddin CIT(DR) & Sh.Mazahar Akram, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 58

…y the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation(supra), which in turn, has been delivered on the basis of the findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd v. CIT (1997) 6 SCC 117. Therefore, the only judgment the ownership of the Infrastructure Development and Reserve Fund (IDRF), among the decisions cited by the learned AR is the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi Bench in the case of Saharanpur Development Authority. Here too, we observe that the basic question before the Hon’ble Delhi Bench was whether, if the principal a…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 923/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Shreehari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

…case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in not following the settled law of Hon'ble Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore Page 2 of 17 Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in [(1997) 6 SCC 117/ (1997) 227 ITR 1721 ] wherein it has been clearly held that if the capital of the company is fruitfully utilized instead of keeping it idle the income generated will be of revenue nature and not accretion to capital? 3. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in placing reliance upon judge…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -5 vs. Jaypee Powergrid Ltd

ITA-397/2019HC Delhi30 Nov 2023

Bench: The Tribunal Was Whether The Interest Earned By The Respondent/Assessee From The Investment Made In Fixed Deposits, Out Of The Funds Received For Setting Up A Power Transmission System In The State Of Himachal Pradesh, Would Be Amenable To Tax Under The Head “Income From Other Sources”? 4. The Assessing Officer (Ao), Via The Assessment Order Dated Digitally Signed By:Atul Jain Signing Date:14.12.2023 15:33:37 Signature Not Verified

…above-captioned appeal was issued by the coordinate bench on 16.09.2019, based on the appellant/revenue’s submission that the impugned order was contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT, (1997) 6 SCC 117. 8. On 26.07.2023, counsel for the parties were heard at some length, whereupon, we came to a prima facie view, given the facts and Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:14.12.2023 15:33:37 Signature Not Verified ITA 397/2019…

M/S Asian Hotels Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA/1398/2006HC Delhi09 Oct 2023

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 37

…the Act and not what is incorporated in or omitted from the books of accounts, annual statements, whether as a part of accounting practice or otherwise. [See Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers ltd. Madras v Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras (1997) 6 SCC 117; Taparia Tools Ltd. v Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-1 Nasik (2015) 7 SCC 540; Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 v Matrix Cellular Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:10.10.2023 11:32:37 Signature Not Verified ITA 1398/2006 Page 24 of 29 International Services Pvt. Ltd. 2017:DHC:7186-DB; Pr. Commissioner…

DCIT-2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Zensar Technologies Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5653/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 80Section 92

…o claim the entire expenditure in the year in which it was spent/paid by invoking the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Once a return in that manner was filed, the AO was bound to carry out the assessment by applying the 3 (1972) 3 SCC 252 4 (1997) 6 SCC 117 5 (1978) 4 SCC 358 6 (1999) 8 SCC 338 Civil Appeal Nos. 6366-6368 of 2003 and provisions of that Act and not to go beyond the said return. There is no estoppel against the 12 ITA 5653/Mum/2009 M/s Zensar Technologies Ltd Statute and the Act enables and entitles the assessee to claim the entire expenditure in the manner it is claimed. 21) In view of…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Brahmaputra Cracker and Polymer LIMITED....b

ITA/16/2022HC Gauhati11 Apr 2023

Bench: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

Section 260A

…rendered in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. CIT, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 117 and held as below: “7. The appellant, however, relied upon the decision of this Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT [(1997) 6 SCC 117]. That case dealt with the question whether investment of borrowed funds prior to commencement of business, resulting in earning of interest by the assessee would amount to the assessee earning any income. This Court held that if a person borrows money for business purposes, but utilizes that money to earn interest, however temporarily, the in…

M/S.G.K.W.Ltd vs. Comnr.of Incometax

The appeal is disposed of in the

ITA/50/2006HC Orissa16 Aug 2022

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

Section 35ASection 56Section 57

…Nigam Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1), Bhubaneswar (ITA No.8 of 2005). In the said decision, after considering the judgments in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., Madras v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras (1997) 6 SCC 117; Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar II, Patna v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. [1999] 151 CTR (SC) 276 and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 2 (SC), this Court held that interest earned on short term deposits from the borrowed capital would be capital and not revenue in nature. Consequently, Question (b) is a…

Commissioner of Gst and Central Excise vs. M/S Citibank N.A

C.A. No.-008228 - 2019Supreme Court09 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

Section 35L(1)(b)Section 64(3)Section 65Section 65(10)Section 65(105)Section 65(12)Section 65(7)Section 83

…REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8228 OF 2019 COMMISSIONER OF GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE ... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S CITI BANK N.A. ... RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.89 OF 2021 J U D G M E N T K.M. JOSEPH, J. 1. These Appeals are maintained under Section 35L(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Section 83 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. They are directed against the Orders dated 16.11.2018 and 20.11.2019, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai (hereinafte…

DCIT 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Shinano Retail Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1205/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj, D.R

…ive or conclusive and the matter is to be examined on the touchstone of provisions contained in the Act [See Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1972) 3 SCC 252; Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 141 CTR (SC) 387 : (1997) 6 SCC 117, Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 1978 CTR (SC) 155 : (1978) 4 SCC 358 and United Commercial Bank vs. CIT (1999) 156 CTR (SC) 380 : (1999) 8 SCC338]." 4.7 Thus, the settled position is that the income has to be computed as per the Income Tax Law and the entries passed in the books of account have no final role to play for computing the taxable inco…

Popular Estate Management Ltd., (Previously Known As Pioneer Technopark Ltd), Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2703/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2703/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13) Popular Estate Management The Dcit बनाम/ Ltd. Circle-3(1)(1) Vs. (Previously Known As Pioneer Ahmedabad Technopark Ltd.) 81, New York Tower – A Opp. Muktidham Derasar Sg Highway Thaltej Cross Road Ahmedabad -380 054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcm 0617 P .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Dhiren Shah & Shri Nupur Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Subhas Bain Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Dhiren Shah &For Respondent: Shri Subhas Bain CIT-DR
Section 6Section 68

…of capital receipt. We further reject Revenue's next argument that the assessee itself had shown the impugned sum as its income in its books of account in view of hon'ble apex court's decision in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 6 SCC 117 (SC) to conclude that an accounting treatment is not a determinative factor in deciding taxability of receipt. 18. The Revenue's next argument is based on the hon'ble apex court's landmark decision in Me Dowell & Co. Ltd., Sumati Dayal and Durga Prasad More cases (supra) in seeking to treat assessee's above development and cancellation agreement t…

The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Popular Estate Management Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2682/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Us, Ld. Counsel Has Brought To Our Notice That Co-Ordinate Bench Of The Itat Vide Ita No. 212/Ahd/2014 In The Case Popular Estate Management Ltd. Vs. Ito Dated 29-08-2017 Has Deleted The Quantum Addition On The Basis Of Which The Impugned Penalty Was Levied. Therefore, He Has Contented That Since The Quantum Addition In The Case Of The Assessee For The Year Under Consideration Stands Deleted By The Aforesaid Cited Order Of The Itat, Therefore, Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Cannot Be Levied. Ld. Departmental Representative Could Not Dispute This Material Fact.

For Appellant: Shri/Ms. Dhirendra Shah &For Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R
Section 17Section 2(24)Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 52Section 6Section 63

…of capital receipt. We further reject Revenue’s next argument that the assessee itself had shown the impugned sum as its income in its books of account in view of hon’ble apex court’s decision in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 6 SCC 117 (SC) to conclude that an accounting treatment is not a determinative factor in deciding taxability of receipt. 18. The Revenue’s next argument is based on the hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd., Sumati Dayal and Durga Prasad More cases (supra) in seeking to treat assessee’s above development and cancellation agreement to…

JCIT, Rang-2, Kota vs. Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Limited, Kota

In the result, respective grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 575/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 14A

…- Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Calcutta, (1972) 3 SCC M/s Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. ACIT 252; Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., Madras v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, (1997) 6 SCC 117 ; Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta, (1978) 4 SCC 358; and United Commercial Bank, Calcutta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, WB-III, Calcutta, (1999) 8 SCC 338]. 20) At the most, an inference can be drawn that by showing this expenditure in a spread over manner in the books of accounts, the assessee had initially inten…

Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Limited, Kota vs. JCIT, Kota

In the result, respective grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 461/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 14A

…- Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Calcutta, (1972) 3 SCC M/s Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. ACIT 252; Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., Madras v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, (1997) 6 SCC 117 ; Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta, (1978) 4 SCC 358; and United Commercial Bank, Calcutta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, WB-III, Calcutta, (1999) 8 SCC 338]. 20) At the most, an inference can be drawn that by showing this expenditure in a spread over manner in the books of accounts, the assessee had initially inten…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ge Capital Services India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 762/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Suchit Jolly, Adv
Section 14A

…touchstone of provisions contained in the Act [See - Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Calcutta, (1972) 3 SCC 252; Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., Madras v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, (1997) 6 SCC 117 ; Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta, (1978) 4 SCC 358; and United Commercial Bank, Calcutta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, WB-III, Calcutta, (1999) 8 SCC 338]. 20) At the most, an inference can be drawn that by showing this expenditure in a spread over manner in the books of accounts, the 9 I.T.As. No.761 & 762/Del/2…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ge Capital Services India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 761/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Suchit Jolly, Adv
Section 14A

…touchstone of provisions contained in the Act [See - Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Calcutta, (1972) 3 SCC 252; Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., Madras v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, (1997) 6 SCC 117 ; Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta, (1978) 4 SCC 358; and United Commercial Bank, Calcutta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, WB-III, Calcutta, (1999) 8 SCC 338]. 20) At the most, an inference can be drawn that by showing this expenditure in a spread over manner in the books of accounts, the 9 I.T.As. No.761 & 762/Del/2…

Rajat Makan, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 958/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan Sr. DR
Section 143Section 40

…e touchstone of provisions contained in the Act [See – Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Calcutta [1972] 3 SCC 252; Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., Madras v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras [1997] 6 SCC 117; Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta [1978] 4 SCC 358; and United Commercial Bank, Calcutta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, WB-III, Calcutta [1999] 8 SCC 338”. This principle is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. 10 10. As far as principle relating to applicability of section 40(a)(ia) of the act is c…