Section 2(28A) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 2(28A) is Merilyn Shipping & Transports v. Addl. CIT (136 ITD 23), cited in 139 of the 128 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 2(28A)

Merilyn Shipping & Transports v. Addl. CIT
136 ITD 23 · 2012 · ITAT
139
citing judgments

Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance applies only to expenses that remain payable at the end of the financial year, not to expenses that have been actually paid during the previous year without deduction of tax at source.

American Express International Banking Corporation v. CIT
258 ITR 601 · 2002 · High Court
90
citing judgments

Interest paid by banks is allowable as a deduction in computing total income. The decision distinguished the Supreme Court's ruling in Vijaya Bank regarding the deductibility of such interest.

Punjab Stainless Steel Inds v. CIT
324 ITR 396 · 2010 · High Court
66
citing judgments

This case establishes that merely having sufficient interest-free own funds does not automatically prevent interest disallowance on interest-free advances; the assessee must affirmatively prove the business or commercial expediency of such advances.

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. DCIT
383 ITR 59 · 2016 · High Court
64
citing judgments

Tax must be deducted at source under Section 194A only on interest that ultimately partakes the character of income for the recipient. If interest does not qualify as income or falls outside the scope of Section 2(28A), there is no obligation to deduct TDS.

India Ltd. v. CIT (Supra). He
303 ITR 411 · 2008 · High Court
51
citing judgments

Interest received by an industrial undertaking for belated receipt of sale consideration for its products constitutes business income directly derived from the business and is not taxable as 'income from other sources'. This characterization makes such income eligible for business-related deductions.

Ltd. v. ACIT
21 Taxmann.com 138 · 2012 · Reported
49
citing judgments

The primary issue concerns the eligibility for deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly concerning whether an assessee is a 'developer' or 'contractor' for infrastructure projects. The case appears to discuss the impact of subsequent amendments, such as the Explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2007, on the classification of contracts and the availability of such deductions.

American Express International Banking Corpn v. CIT
125 Taxmann 488 · 2002 · High Court
33
citing judgments

Interest paid for the broken period on purchase of dated government securities and interest received for the broken period on sale of such securities, if treated as trading assets, can be claimed as revenue expenditure under section 28. Income falling under section 18 of the Income Tax Act cannot also fall under section 28.

Hyderabad Industries Ltd. v. ITO & Anr.
188 ITR 749 · 1991 · High Court
32
citing judgments

Amounts exempt under Section 10A of the Income-tax Act do not constitute 'income' for the purposes of Section 195, meaning no tax is deductible at source on such amounts.

ITO v. Dr. Willmar Schwabe India (P) Ltd.
95 TTJ 53 · 2005 · ITAT
27
citing judgments

Reimbursement of expenses that do not constitute income chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act is not subject to withholding tax (TDS). Payments made solely for reimbursement of actual expenses incurred by a third party are not taxable income.

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
67 Taxmann.com 259 · 2016 · High Court
24
citing judgments

Tax is deductible at source under Section 194A only on interest that has 'partaken the character of income' in the hands of the recipient.

Judgments on Section 2(28A)

Shree Ganeshaya Trading Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 13(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2198/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2198/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ M/S. Shree Ganeshaya Ito Wd 13(2)(3) Trading Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai A-302, Gokul Garden, V. Thakur Complex, Kandivali East, Mumbai-400101 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aakcs0949M (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Ryan Saldanha Revenue By : Shri. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 11.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 2198/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 01.02.2017 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 23.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In The Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Tribunal”) Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri. Ryan SaldanhaFor Respondent: Shri. Chaudhary Arun Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

DCIT, Cir-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Champion Commercial Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1421/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2013-14 Dcit, Circle-10(1), V/S. M/S Champion P-7, Chowringhee Commercial Co. Ltd., Square, 3Rd Floor, P-15, Cit Road, Kolkata-69 Kolkata-73 [Pan No.Aabcc 2373 G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 26-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Dated 04.04.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 10.02.2016 For Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “I. That On The Facts Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,50,938/- On A Wrong Appreciation Of Facts Ignoring The Provisions Of Section 37(1) Overrule The Judicial Pronouncement Of Cit Vs. Calcutta Agency Limited (1951) (191) Itr (Sc) Ii. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.13,91,404/- On A Wrong Appreciation Of Facts Ignoring The Provisions Of Section 37 Of The It Act, 1961. Iii. That On The Facts Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.20,25,329/- On Wrong Appreciation Of Facts Ignoring The

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 195Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 44A