← 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

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Udupi. vs. M/S Syndicate Bank, Udupi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 337/PAN/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji09 Oct 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.337/Pan/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03 Dcit, Circle-1, Udupi. Vs. M/S. Syndicate Bank, Central Accounts Department, Tax Cell, Head Officer, Manipal. Pan : Aaccs4699E Appellant Respondent C.O. No.01/Pan/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No.337/Pan/2016) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03 Canara Bank (Erstwhile Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Udupi. Syndicate Bank), F.M. Wing, Head Office, 112, J. C. Road, Bengaluru- 560002. Pan : Aaacc6106G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Smt. Ashwini D. Hosmani Assessee By : Shri S. Ananthan Smt. S. Lalitha R. Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2023

For Appellant: Shri S. AnanthanFor Respondent: Smt. Ashwini D. Hosmani
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 244A

wherein, the Hon’ble High Court held that the payment of interest of refund does not amount to payment of interest on interest. The relevant paragraphs of the order of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court (supra) reads as under :- “8. A three Judge Bench ... amount refunded, the revenue would be liable to pay interest on the short fall. This does not amount to payment of interest on interest. In view of aforesaid enunciation of 5 C.O. No.01/PAN/2023 law by a three judge bench of the Supreme Court, which is binding

ACIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Gemtex Merchants Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1270/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1270/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit-3(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Gentex Merchants Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 81, Maker Chambers-Iii, Road, Mumbai-400020. 223, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcg1491M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Dr. Kishor Dhule (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, Delhi Dated 20.02.2023 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The First Ground Of Appeal Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Restricting The Annual Value Of The Property Let Out At Rs.1,20,00,000/- As Against Rs.14,14,94,120/- Determined By The Ao. 3. Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Company Had Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay. 2012-13 On 29.09.2012 Declaring A Total Loss Of (Rs.2,14,60,919/-). The Ao Noted That The Assessee Has Declared Income From Two Heads Of Income Viz. Income From House Property & Income From Business & Profession. & That The Assessee Company Owned A Residential Property At 22, Aurangazeb Road, New Delhi. & That The Assessee Has Let Out The Said Property On Rent Of Rs.1,20,00,000/- For The Year. Further The Assessee Also Charged A Fixed

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule (DR)

Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs Hemraj Mahavir Prasad 279 ITR 522(Cal) wherein it was held that notional interest on interest free loan given by the tenant would neither be a determining factor nor a component to be considered in assessing the true & fair ... held that in arriving at the fair rent there is no provision in law for inclusion of any notional interest on interest free deposit received from tenant. The Full Bench of the High Court specifically rejected the Revenue's contention that a reasonable interest can be included