Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Assessee's Provision for Deep Discount Bonds Interest Upheld</h1> The Tribunal concluded that the provision made by the assessee for the interest on Deep Discount Bonds is an accrued liability and not contingent. The ... Business Expenditure Issues Involved:1. Deletion of disallowance of interest payable on deep discount bonds issued by the assessee-company.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Disallowance of Interest Payable on Deep Discount Bonds:Facts and Background:The assessee, a company, issued Deep Discount Bonds (DD Bonds) with a maturity period of 25 years and varying redemption values at intervals of 5, 10, 15, and 20 years. The bonds, used for business purposes, accrue interest compounded yearly at 18.33%. The assessee provided for the incremental interest in its books, but the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the claim of Rs. 2,79,76,080 for the assessment year 1995-96, labeling it as a contingent liability. Similar disallowances were made for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1999-2000. However, for the assessment year 1994-95, the interest was allowed, and for 1995-96 and 1998-99, the claims were accepted under section 143(1)(a) of the Act.Assessing Officer's Findings:The AO argued that DD Bonds and regular bonds are distinct, with the former not specifying payable interest. Unlike fixed deposits, the interest on DD Bonds is not quantifiable until maturity. The AO held that since the bonds are redeemable only at the company's option at the end of 5 years, the interest does not accrue until then, making the liability contingent and not an ascertained or accrued liability. Consequently, the provision for interest was disallowed.Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] Findings:The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 802, which allowed spreading the discount on debentures over their life. The CIT(A) held that the DD Bonds issued by the assessee are comparable to debentures, and the interest claim of Rs. 2,79,76,080 is an admissible deduction under section 37. The CIT(A) relied on the CBDT clarification that the difference between the issue price and redemption price is treated as interest in the hands of the bondholder, thus should be similarly treated for the issuer.Revenue's Arguments:The CIT-DR argued that no interest is payable until 5 years from the issue date, making the liability contingent. The Supreme Court decision in Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd.'s case was deemed inapplicable as the bonds were not issued at a discount, and the liability arises only upon the company's option to redeem the bonds.Assessee's Arguments:The assessee's counsel contended that the interest payable on the bonds is ascertained and not contingent, as the liability is fixed and quantifiable annually. The interest rate of 18.31% was aligned with market rates, and similar bonds were issued by other financial institutions. The liability was argued to be an accrued liability, not contingent.Tribunal's Analysis:The Tribunal referenced the Accounting Standards prescribed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) and the Supreme Court's acceptance of these standards in Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 167. It distinguished between a provision and a contingent liability, emphasizing that a provision is for a known liability, even if its exact amount is uncertain. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's principles in BEML v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428, stating that an accrued liability, though to be discharged in the future, is deductible if it is certain and can be reasonably estimated.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the provision made by the assessee for the interest on DD Bonds is an accrued liability and not contingent. The interest liability was rationally spread over the bond's life as per the terms of issue. Thus, the provision for interest payable was allowable, and the appeals by the Revenue were dismissed.Result:The appeals were dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance of interest payable on the Deep Discount Bonds.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found