TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules retained amount not income, interest not chargeable on disallowed deduction under Income Tax Act</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Chandigarh Versus M/s SAB Industries</h3> Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Chandigarh Versus M/s SAB Industries - TMI Issues:1. Whether the amount retained by the authorities could be treated as the assessee's income despite being assessed on an accrual basisRs.2. Whether interest under Section 234-B of the Income Tax Act was chargeable on the deduction claimed under Section 80-IA, even though the deduction was disallowedRs.Analysis:1. The first issue revolved around the treatment of an amount retained by the authorities as the assessee's income, despite being assessed on an accrual basis. The Counsel for the revenue conceded that a previous judgment covered this issue against the revenue. The Court noted that the revenue's challenge was covered by a judgment in a similar case, where it was held that the amount retained could not be treated as the assessee's income. Therefore, the Court dismissed the challenge on this issue.2. The second issue concerned the chargeability of interest under Section 234-B of the Income Tax Act on the deduction claimed under Section 80-IA, even after the deduction was disallowed. The revenue argued that the interest was mandatory and should not have been deleted by the CIT(A) and the ITAT. On the other hand, the assessee contended that they had a bonafide belief that the deduction was available, and the interest should not be levied. The Court examined the retrospective amendment that nullified the exemption claimed by the assessee and held that the assessee could not have foreseen this change. Relying on a previous judgment, the Court found that the assessee acted in good faith and should not be held liable for interest. Therefore, the Court upheld the decision of the CIT(A) and the ITAT, dismissing the appeal on this issue as well.
TaxTMI 