TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (9) TMI 1065
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....995 in Assessment Year 1994-95 dated 27-9-1998, in I.T.A. No.73/PN/2000 in the assessment year 1995-96 dated 24.5.2000 and in I.T.A. No.580/PN/2000 in the assessment year 1996-97 dated 2.2.2001 wherein at page 11 para 22, page 18 para 6 and page 43 para 22 respectively of the paper book in all these assessment years, the issue of excise duty, sales tax and interest has been decided in favour of the assessee by following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sudarshan Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT (1997) 60 ITD 629. It was further pointed out by the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sudarshan Chemical Industries Ltd. (supra) had been affirmed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Sudarshan Chemical Industries Ltd. (245 ITR 769). The learned Departmental Representative Shri G.S.Singh also accepted the same. This being so, this part of ground of appeal of the assessee which relates to inclusion of excise duty, sales tax payable and interest in the total turnover of the assessee is decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 4. The other part of the ground of appeal relates t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt in souvenirs and other types of expenditure as the expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for purposes of business and no part of the expenditure can be disallowed u/s.37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This view is reinforced by Circular No.200 dated June 28, 1976, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Sub-Section (4) of Sec.37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is no doubt a non-obstante clause, but it is a non-obstante clause vis-a-vis sub-section (1) and sub-section (3) of Sec.37 only. If any expenditure or allowance is allowable under other sections of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the allowance cannot be withdrawn or denied to the assessee because of the prohibitory provisions in Sec.37 (4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the assessee will be entitled to depreciation on the premises used as guest house." Hence, it was his argument that since the Tribunal has not considered these judgements of the Bombay High Court while deciding the issue, in the present appeal, the Bench should take these decisions into consideration and decide the issue in favour of the assessee. On the other hand, Mr. Singh the learned Departmental Representative argued that as the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... irrecoverable and is bad. In view of the provisions of Section 36(2) (iii) and (iv) it is imperative for the A.O. to give positive findings, whenever the claim for bad debts is made by the assessee as to which previous year, if any, the debt has become irrecoverable. If the A.O. comes to a finding that it has become irrecoverable in an earlier previous year, which is not beyond the period of 4 years immediately proceeding the previous year of the "writing off", the A.O. has to take necessary action u/s. 36(2) (iv) and rectify the assessment of the previous year wherein in his opinion the debt became irrecoverable. If on the other hand, the A.O. comes to a finding that the debt becomes bad in later previous year he shall give the deduction when he makes the assessment for such relevant previous year. In any case, the A.O. has to give a finding as to the year in which the debt has become bad or irrecoverable. 6.9 In the present case the A.O. has not carried out this imperative exercise. Prima facie it is seen that the amounts shown as bad are premature claims since most of the invoices against which the debt is claimed as bad are of the current financial year. However, i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 70 of the paper book filed by the assessee it is observed that the details of bad debts was as under: Rs. in lakhs Brought forward 75.38 Bad Debts as per list 41.59 116.97 Less: provision for Bad Debts written back during the year 45.13 Carried forward 71.84 Further, from the details of Misc. expenses of ₹ 414.07 lakhs filed at page nos. 194 and 195 of the paper book it is observed that the assessee has debited ₹ 41.59 Lakhs under the head "Provision for Bad Debts" and credited ₹ 45.13 lakhs under that head and thus, credited net amount of ₹ 3.54 lakhs under this head and reduced the miscellaneous expenses by amount of this ₹ 3.54 lakhs. From the the details of ₹ 45.13 lakhs as given by the assessee in the above page, it appears that an amount of ₹ 25.25 lakhs was disallowed in the assessment of earlier years and ₹ 19.88 lakhs was allowed as deduction to the assessee in the earlier years. From the order of the assessment (page 16 and 17) we find that the A.O. has duly allowed deduction of ₹ 25.25 lakhs in computing the taxable income of the year under consideration which were disallowed and taxed in the ea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dance note on accounting treatment for MODVAT which has been reproduced by the A.O. in his note as Annexure 'A' of the assessment order. The A.O. found that from the full amount of excise duty of ₹ 9,18,17,000/- was actually paid in cash and for the balance of ₹ 78,89,000/- credit was taken of the MODVAT ingredient in the purchase price. The addition of ₹ 78,89,000/- has been made by the A.O. for the following reasons: (a) Purchase of raw-materials and value of closing stock should reflect the full purchase price inclusive of excise duty paid ; (b) Only the taxes which are paid in cash should be claimed as charged on profits and should be allowed as deduction; (c) MODVAT registers do not/cannot impinge with charge on profits; they are only instruments to determine cash out-go on account of excise duty and they should be used only for that purpose; (d) Income determined in consonance with (a), (b) and (c) above alone is the correct income, which is subject to charge of income tax. 12. In appeal, the CIT(A) has held that the correct method is the one held by the Bombay Tribunal in S.H.Kelkar and Co. which is as follows: (i) to debit purchase cost....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I is not adopted, it is contended by the appellant's Representative that the profit and loss account would appear as under: Unit Rate Amount Unit Rate Amount To purchase of raw-materials. 100 12 1200 By sales 60 15 900 Less: Stock of raw materials. 40 12 480 720 To excise duty 60 3 180 To G.P. NIL 900 900 It has been emphasized that with such a method of accounting, the profit of ₹ 120/-, which is reflected in the illustration of the ICAI (supra), would disappear to a NIL figure. 14. The A.O's conclusion on page 5 to 8 that the method of accounting suggested by the ICAI is not valid is beyond reason because he has compared it with a case where there is no or NIL rate of duty on the finished goods. The comparison is wholly inapposite. There can be no comparison between a case where MODVAT credit is to be availed of an another where the provisions of MODVAT are inapplicable. 15. There is no dispute relating to the excise duty payable on the finished goods. This amount must either be debited to profit and loss account or must be reduced from the sale of ₹ 900/- (illustration supra). Admittedly, the MODVAT credit embedded in the purcha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ill still have to be claimed as part of cost of purchase of raw materials and will be debited to the profit and loss account. In effect, therefore, there will be no impact on the taxable income for the year. 18. The amount of MODVAT credit availed is treated as part of the excise duty claimed as a deduction on account of excise duty payment and not included in the cost of raw material which is accounted for net of MODVAT. There is no double adjustment of MODVAT credit in the accounts. 19. The learned Authorised Representative of the assessee further argued that the method of accounting which is followed consistently for the last 20 years since 1979 upto the assessment year 1999-2000 when the method was changed because of introduction of Section 145A in the Income-tax Act, 1961 and accepted by the department has also been approved by the Tribunal in the case of Berger Paints India Ltd., reported in (1993) 44 ITD 573. He further submitted that the issue at hand is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. (2003) 261 ITR 275. Hence, he pleaded that the order of the CIT (A) must be upheld. 20. After considering the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts claim was supported by the consolidated order of decision of the Special Bench of the Delhi Tribunal, in the case of ITO vs. Food Specialities Ltd., in I.T.A.No. 4869 (Del) of 1982 and I.T.A.No.4726/Del/1987 for the assessment year 1984-85 dated 2nd February, 1994 and Indian Communication Network (P) Ltd. vs. IAC in I.T.A.No. 3483/Del/1988 28th January, 1994. The A.O. did not accept the explanation and the contention of the assessee and observed that (i) the method adopted by the assessee of not including the excise duty in valuation of closing stock is against the standard accounting practice provided by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and (ii) the above recognised practice has been mutilated by quoting case of Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd., reported in AIR 1975 (SC) 460, in a totally out of context. He therefore, held that the claim of excise duty was not allowable and the same was added back to the returned income. 22. In appeal, the CIT(A) examined whether the value of closing stock of finished goods is to be augmented by the proportionate amount of accrued excise duty liability debited to the profit and loss account. The CIT(A) observed that the A.O. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A) held that the assessee's method of accounting of valuation of stock-in-trade by excluding the proportionate excise duty liability is correct, particularly in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. (supra). Further, the CIT(A) has also examined the proposition that if the inclusion of excise duty in the valuation of stock-in-trade is for any reason to be sustained, the assessee has claimed that deduction of the amount of excise duty paid before filing of the return should be allowed as a deduction under Section 43B to negate the addition made on account of excise duty in the valuation of closing stock. However, in the circumstances of the case, it is needless to go into the alternative claim of the assessee u/s. 43B since the valuation of closing stock exclusive of excise duty has been correctly made as per the recognised principles of accounting. The CIT(A) observed that furthermore, this method of accounting has been approved by the Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal and as pointed out by the assessee's Representative the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in 172 ITR 30, compels the subordinate authorities to follow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... profit arises from the valuation of stock on a consistent basis. There is no change in the method of valuation of stock and the opening and closing inventories are valued on the same basis. (h) The assessee values the stock of finished goods at the lower of cost or market. The cost is determined by applying the principle of direct costing. In other words, expenses, which are not in the nature of cost of manufacturing or production, are not taken into account. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. British Paints Ltd. (188 ITR 44) does not, in any way, contradict the assessee's submissions. This decision has also been considered by the Special Bench of the Tribunal and on page 56 it is confirmed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not disapproved of the method of direct costing. (i) The A.O. has added the sum under the misconception that the amount was claimed in addition to debiting the amount in the profit and loss account as the same-formed part of the closing stock of the assessee. (j) The method of accounting followed by the assessee is supported by the Special bench decision in the case of food Specialities Ltd. pages 24 to 27 clearly uphold the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT(A) to tax the net interest received from the Income-tax Department. During the year under appeal, the assessee received interest of ₹ 45,90,876/- from the Income-tax Department and paid interest of ₹ 1,37,221/- to the department. The assessee's claim is that only net interest should be charged to tax and for this, reliance is placed on the decision of Delhi Tribunal in I.T.A. No.913 and 3914/(Delhi)/1980 and 620/(Del.)/1981 dated 21st August, 1981 in the case of R.N.Aggarwal vs. ITO and decision of the Bombay Tribunal in the case of Cyanamid Indian Ltd., in I.T.A. No.4561/Bom./1982 for the assessment year 1978-79 order dated 23.5.1984. The A.O. rejected the claim on the ground that the interest charged on late payment of tax by the department is not the business expenses for the purpose of computing the income. In appeal, the CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee, directed the A.O. to tax only net interest in view of the Tribunal decisions referred to by the assessee. Being aggrieved the Revenue is in appeal before us. 27. We have heard the rival submissions. The learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the A.O. On the other....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... at page 15 of the assessment order are that during the course of examination it was found by the A.O. that the assessee has credited only the net interest received from the Income-tax Department i.e. the interest paid to the Income-tax Department was deducted from the interest received on income-tax refund. This claim was made by the assessee on the basis of two decisions of the Tribunal. the A.O. after rejecting the assessee's claim was of the view that interest charged on late payment of tax by the Department is not a business expenses deductible for the purpose of computing income under the I.T.Act and, therefore, interest charged by the Department ₹ 1,37,225/- was added in the income of the assessee. On first appeal before the CIT(A) the assessee has reiterated the same submissions and in support of it reliance was placed on the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of R.N.Aggarwal vs. I.T.O., I.T.A.T., Delhi bench and Cynamide (India) Ltd. vs. ITO, I.T.A.T., Bombay Bench. the CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee vide finding recorded at para 9.3 of her order has directed the A.O. to tax only the net interest in view of the Tribunal's decision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stage including the Tribunal, that the interest received from the Income-tax Department be assessed under the head "income from other sources" and even otherwise no such plea or claim was admitted by the Bench during the course of hearing. The deduction of interest paid to the Department was claimed solely on the ground that there can be only one account between the parties. However, the Ld. A/R of the assessee has failed to show that under which provision of law such deduction of interest is allowable, therefore, such accounting method, as claimed by the Ld. A/R of the assessee, is contrary to law and it cannot over-ride the provisions of Income-tax Act as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizer Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (1997) 227 ITR 172. 7. The ld. A/R of the assessee has also failed to show any nexus between the interest received and payment of interest to the Income-tax Department. Even under the head "Income from other sources" such deduction of interest paid to the Income-tax Department is not allowable deduction in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Dr. Gopi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eference to the tax on income cannot be allowed as deduction." 10. In the case of Raj Narain Agarwal vs. CIT reported in (2002) 177 C.T.R. (Del) 90 it was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that interest payable to Income-tax Department u/s.217 and section 220(2) cannot be allowed as business expenditure following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Commerce nd Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (supra). 11. In the case of Fenner (India) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (1997) 223 ITR 738 it was held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court (short note) that:- "Where tax which is due from the assessee is based on profits and gains of business or profession any interest payable for non-payment of such tax should also be considered as levied on the basis of such profits or gains. It cannot be allowed as a deduction." 12. In the case of Fenner (India) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2002) 124 Taxman 264 (Madras) it was again held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court following its earlier decision reported in 223 ITR 738 that interest paid u/s.220(2) is not an allowable deduction against profit of company. 13. In the case of Orissa Cement Ltd. vs. CIT (199....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come-tax Department, therefore, it cannot be held that the interest paid on income-tax to the Department is liable u/s. 36(iii). It was also held that the assessee is not entitled for any deduction u/s. 37. Copy of the Tribunal's order in the aforesaid case is enclosed as annexure-I. 18. After considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts including the later decision of Gauhati Bench of the Tribunal, I am of the view that with great respect the earlier decisions of the Tribunal as relied upon by the Ld. A/R of the assessee are distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. I am therefore, respectfully following the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as referred to above, of the view that the interest paid on delayed amount of income-tax is not allowable deduction as business expenditure or otherwise under the I.T.Act as such payment of interest is inextricably connected with the assessee's tax liability which itself is not allowable as deduction and accordingly the ground No.4 taken by the Revenue in ITA No.119/PN/1996 for the assessment year 1992-93 is allowed. 19. In respect of other grounds is both the appeals exc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee has made sales of ₹ 42,90,249 through private brokers out of total sales of ₹ 1,03,69,359. We further find that before the CIT(A) the assessee has furnished a chart showing the average sale price of tea sold in auction, market and in open market through private sales. On the basis of that chart the assessee has claimed that it has earned extra return by ₹ 0.39 paise on the turnover made from private sales as compared to auction sales. Since the assessee has established that the payment of commission is for business purposes and has earned more profit, therefore, in the absence of any contrary material brought on record by the Revenue to show that the payment of commission is not incidental to business, we are of the view that the payment of commission has rightly been held by the CIT(A) as incidental to business and allowable as business expenditure and accordingly the ground taken by the Revenue is rejected. 8. Ground No. 2 in the asst. yr. 1993-94 is against the deletion of interest charged under s. 234B of the Act. 9. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that interest under s. 234B is chargeable on the income as per Expln. 1 to s. 234B ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s rightly disallowed the claim of ₹ 49,339 and added the same in the income of the assessee. He further submitted that the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the same by holding that the payment of interest is admissible expenditure being incidental to nature of business. He therefore, submitted that the order of the CIT(A) should be reversed and that of the AO should be restored. 14. On the other hand, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee submitted that the nature of the business of the assessee is also that of finance business and earning interest. The assessee has paid interest to various parties amounting to ₹ 6,45,774 which included the interest on income-tax of ₹ 49,339 and the net interest of ₹ 5,50,560 was shown which was also assessed. Since the AO has allowed other interest, therefore, like other interest, the interest on income-tax is also allowable as business expenses under s. 37 of the Act incidental to the nature of the assessee's business. He therefore, submitted that the CIT(A) was fully justified in allowing the same and his order should be upheld. 15. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the part....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is rejected. 17. We further held that even otherwise it is not allowable as interest payable on non-payment of such tax is to be considered as levied on the basis of the income assessed. This view finds support from the decision in the case of Fenner (India) Ltd. us. CIT (1998) 146 CTR (Mad) 502 : (1997) 223 ITR 738 (Mad) and again in the same case reported in Fenner (India) Ltd. us. CIT (2002) 177 CTR (Mad) 318 : (2002) 124 Taxman 264 (Mad). In this view of the matter the order passed by the CIT(A) is reversed on this account and that of the AO is upheld and accordingly the ground taken by the Revenue is allowed. 18. Ground No. 2 in asst. yr. 1994-95 is against the deletion of interest charged under s. 234B of the Act. 19. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that his plea for the earlier asst. yr. i.e. 1993-94 may be considered for this year also and accordingly it was submitted that the order passed by the CIT(A) should be reversed. 20. On the other hand the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee while relying on the order of the CIT(A) further argued that since the AO has not passed any order charging the levy of interest therefore in view of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vs. Inchcape India (P) Ltd. (2003) 179 CTR (Del) 212 held that the interest under s. 234B of the Act is not chargeable and accordingly the order passed by the CIT(A) on this account is upheld with different reason. The ground taken by the Revenue is therefore rejected. 22. The last ground in both the appeals is general in nature and, therefore, the same is rejected. 23. In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed. R.V. Easwar, President (As Third Member):- 2 June 2011 1. The appeal was heard by the Bench and in respect of Ground No.4 there was a difference of opinion between the Members. They could not also agree on the point of difference to be referred to the Third Member. According to the learned Judicial Member, the following was the point of difference to be decided by the Third Member:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of the amount of interest ₹ 1,37,225/- paid to the Income-tax Department against the interest received on income-tax refunds while computing its income?" However, according to the learned Accountant Member, the difference of opinion arose on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#39;s claim was only that there can be only one account between the two parties and in such a case the interest paid and the interest received should be set off against each other, According to the learned Judicial Member, the assessee failed to establish any nexus between the two. He held that even under the head "Income from other sources", the interest paid to the income tax department was not allowable as a deduction as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Dr V P Gopinathan (2001) 246 ITR 449 (SC). As regards the orders of the Tribunal, both the Delhi and the Bombay Benches, on which the assessee placed reliance, the learned Judicial Member observed that these orders cannot be applied in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (1998) 230 ITR 733 (SC). Decisions of the Madras, Orissa, Bombay and Gauhati High Courts were also referred to by the learned Judicial Member in rejecting the contention of the assessee. in particular, he placed reliance on the order of the Gauhati Bench of the Tribunal constituted by the same Members, in the case of ACIT vs. Hazarimal Nandlal (ITA Nos.240 and 241/Gau/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts on the subject and the method of accounting followed by the assesses is not relevant as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC). (h) The judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat commerce and industries Ltd. (supra) and in the case of CIT vs. Govinda Choudhury and Sons (1993) 203 ITR 881 (SC) also apply to the present case in favour of the revenue. (i) Alternatively, even if the assessee maintains only one account, namely, the account of the income tax department which makes no distinction between taxes paid and refunds received for different years, the Assessing Officer has the power to pick out the items of taxable receipts and apply the law accordingly and in doing so, also has the power to disallow interest payments which do not fall under any specific provision of the law. The judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Usha Sales Ltd. vs. CIT (2002) 254 ITR 145 (Del) is on the point. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that irrespective of the fact that different questions have been referred to the Third Member by the dissenting Members; the issue is what is t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inciple and the question of deductibility cannot be separated and considered and both are inter-twined. According to him, the ground taken by the department before the Tribunal was properly worded and has brought out this aspect of the matter quite clearly. He pointed out that different sections of the Income Tax Act provide for different payments/refunds and therefore the nature of the interest should depend on these statutory provisions irrespective of the fact that the assesses may treat them in a single account. He pointed out that the defaults under the various sections are not of the same nature. For instance, section 234C is for deferment of advance tax whereas section 244A deals with refunds. These sections deal with different subjects/defaults and they occur in different Chapters and even the rate of interest is different. It is therefore not possible to contend, according to the learned CIT DR, that both are of the same nature and should be merged. Vis-a-vis the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Arunna Mills Limited (supra), he pointed out that the concept of advance tax as it existed at that time has undergone a total change now, According to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....interest was assessed under the head "Business". There is no dispute before me as to the head under which the interest income is to be assessed, though one would have thought that having regard to the legal position, interest on refunds of tax was always assessable under the residuary head. Be that as it may, the question before me is first whether the interest paid can be allowed as a deduction. Since in the present case the interest was assessed as business income. I will first consider the question whether the interest paid can be allowed as a deduction. The learned Judicial Member has held that it cannot be allowed under section 36(1)(iii) because there is no borrowing by the assesses. There can be no two opinions on the same in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd. (supra). In that case it was held that where the assesses paid tax under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme in installments with interest, the interest was not deductible under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 11. The next question is whether the interest can be claimed as a deduction under section 37(1) of the Act while computing the business income.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... noticed that the argument before them on behalf of the assessee was that the real income of the assessee was only ₹ 27,034/-. This argument was rejected by the Supreme Court in the following words:- "If was not disputed, as it could not be, that if the assessee had taken a loan from another bank and paid interest thereon his real income would not diminish to the extent thereof. The only question then is does it make any difference that he took the loan from the same bank in which he had placed the fixed deposit. There is no difference in the eye of the law. The interest that the assessee received from the bank was income in his hands. It could stand diminished only if there was a provision in law which permits such diminution. There is none, and, therefore, the amount paid by the assessee as interest on the loan that he took from the bank did not reduce his income by way of interest on the fixed deposit placed by him in the bank". The learned counsel for the assessee sought to point out a distinction between Dr V P Gopinathan's case and the present case by pointing out that if the assessee in the case before the Supreme Court had taken a loan from another ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no connection between the two positions and that it is impossible to accept the claim that the two situations are connected as to constitute one transaction. The result of each of these facts, according to the Hon'ble High Court, have separate and independent legal consequences and that the receipt undoubtedly constituted income of the assesses and the claim to deduct or reduce the interest paid from the interest received should be examined independently. Thereafter the High Court went on to examine the contention based on the principle of netting and eventually rejected the same. Another argument based on the contention that both commercially and technically the payment of interest by the Government and the payment of interest by the assesses stand on the same footing was also rejected. In fact, this is a branch of the argument based on the rule of netting. It was observed by the Court that the provision for payment of interest in the Act is not as compensation for use of the money belonging to the creditor which a debtor has, but the payment is for an entirely different consideration, namely, that there was a default in complying with the statutory obligation to make advance ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see is assessable in respect of the gross interest of ₹ 45,90,876/- received from the income tax department and not merely on the net interest of ₹ 44,53,655/- remaining after set off of the interest of ₹ 37,225/- paid to the income tax department. The interest payment cannot also be allowed as a deduction from the interest received. I thus agree with the decision of the learned Judicial Member in respect of Ground No.4 taken by the department. 19. The appeal will now be placed before the Bench for passing orders in conformity with the majority opinion. G.S. Pannu, Accountant Member:- 13 September 2011 1. These cross-appeals by the assessee and the Revenue are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Pune dated 31.10.1995 which, in turn, has arisen from the order dated 28.3.1995 passed by the Assessing Officer passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") for the assessment year 1992-93. 2. Initially these appeals were heard on 18.06.2003 and all the Ground's, except Ground No. 4 in the appeal of the Revenue's was unanimously adjudicated by the Division Bench. In so far as Groun....