← All Phrases

“interest on interest”

InterestSection 244ASection 244A238 judgments

The decision most relied on for interest on interest is Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83), cited in 2,943 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on interest on interest

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court
2,943
citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.
313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court
2,118
citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT
288 ITR 1 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,484
citing judgments

Interest paid on borrowed funds cannot be disallowed merely because the assessee made interest-free advances, provided those advances were made for business purposes and commercial expediency. The Revenue cannot dictate a businessman's commercial decisions, but the assessee bears the onus to prove the business expediency.

Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO
322 ITR 283 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,283
citing judgments

The interest income earned by a cooperative society from investing its surplus funds in fixed deposits with banks is not "derived from" its eligible business activities and is taxable as "income from other sources" under Section 56, thus not qualifying for deduction under Section 80P.

CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.
366 ITR 505 · 2014 · High Court
1,261
citing judgments

When an assessee possesses interest-free funds sufficient to cover investments yielding tax-free income, it is presumed that such investments were made from these interest-free funds, precluding disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A.

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT
328 ITR 81 · 2010 · High Court
1,183
citing judgments

Rule 8D, for computing disallowance under Section 14A for expenses related to exempt income, applies from Assessment Year 2008-09 onwards; for prior years, a reasonable disallowance must be made. The disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned.

CIT v. Max India Ltd.
295 ITR 282 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,162
citing judgments

Under Section 263, an assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's (AO) view, particularly if the AO has adopted one of two permissible views in law, unless that view is completely unsustainable. If due inquiries were made, the AO's order does not become erroneous solely because the fact of inquiries was not recorded.

Pr. CIT v. Totagars
395 ITR 611 · 2017 · High Court
1,074
citing judgments

Interest income earned by a cooperative society from surplus deposits or investments held with a cooperative bank is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act.

Judgments citing interest on interest

JCIT (in Situ), Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. The Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 750/KOL/2025[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2025AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.750/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 1992-93) Jcit (In Situ), Circle-1(1), Vs The Peerless General Finance Kolkata & Investment Company Limited Peerless Bhawan, 3, Esplanade East, Kolkata-700069 Pan No. :Aabct 3043 L (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sushanta Saha, Addl. Cit निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 26.09.2017, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-22, Kolkata, For The Assessment Year 1992-93. 2. At The Outset, We Observe That There Is A Delay Of 39 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Revenue For Which The Condonation Petition Has Been Filed. After Perusing The Contents Of Condonation Petition, We Are Inclined To Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication. 3. The Only Issue Raised By The Revenue In The Various Grounds Of Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Holding That The Assessee Is Entitled To Interest On Unpaid Interest Whereas There Is No Provisions As Per The Income Tax Act To Charge The Interest On Unpaid Interest On The Assessee As Well As Nowhere The Powers Give Rights To The Assessing Officer To Give Interest On Unpaid Interest To The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate and MsFor Respondent: Shri Sushanta Saha, Addl. CIT
Section 154Section 244A

on the balance amount due from the department to the assessee, on a particular date, does not amount to payment of interest on interest. Their lordships, taking support from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ... Limited (supra) indicates that it would be incorrect and improper to regard payment of interest when part payment is made as interest on interest. What has been elucidated and clarified by the Supreme Court is that when 6 refund order is issued, the same should include

Rolta India Ltd. Through Dr. Mamta Binani, Rp., Mumbai vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3563/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3563/Mum/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2020-21 Rolta India Ltd. Through Dr. Mamta Binani, Rp. Rolta Tower-A, Rolta Technology Park, 22Nd Street, Midc, Marol Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 093 Pan: Aaacr2711G ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2737/Mum/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2018-19 Rolta India Ltd. Through Dr. Mamta Binani, Irp. Rolta Tower-A, Rolta Technology Park, 22Nd Street, Midc, Marol Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 093 Pan: Aaacr2711G ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant M/S. Rolta India Ltd. बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 37(1)Section 92C

Resolution Panel has confirmed the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer making an addition of Rs.2,98,53,254/- on account of interest on interest free short term loans and advance to associate enterprises. 2. The learned Assessing Officer pursuant to the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel

Rolta India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2737/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3563/Mum/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2020-21 Rolta India Ltd. Through Dr. Mamta Binani, Rp. Rolta Tower-A, Rolta Technology Park, 22Nd Street, Midc, Marol Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 093 Pan: Aaacr2711G ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2737/Mum/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2018-19 Rolta India Ltd. Through Dr. Mamta Binani, Irp. Rolta Tower-A, Rolta Technology Park, 22Nd Street, Midc, Marol Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 093 Pan: Aaacr2711G ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant M/S. Rolta India Ltd. बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 37(1)Section 92C

Resolution Panel has confirmed the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer making an addition of Rs.2,98,53,254/- on account of interest on interest free short term loans and advance to associate enterprises. 2. The learned Assessing Officer pursuant to the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel