AI Insights
The case involves the Small Industries Development Bank of India (the appellant) contesting the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, which upheld the Assessing Officer's action of disallowing certain deductions related to interest on income tax refunds. The primary legal contention was whether the interest received on income tax refunds should be included in the total revenue from operations while calculating deductions under section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal's decision reversed the lower authorities' findings, aligning with its previous rulings that such interest should not be included in the revenue for deduction calculations.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123616 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
3 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
04-09-2023
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
G
Next Hearing Date
03-09-2023
Assessment Year
2010-2011
Appeal Filed On
17-05-2023
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 1778/MUM/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Small Industries Development Bank of India, SME Development Centre C-11, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Vs. DCIT Circle-3(3)(2), Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AABCS 3480 N Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Ms. Vinita Shah Revenue by : Mr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 04/09/2023 Date of pronouncement : 05/09/2023 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 21.03.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2010-11, raising following grounds: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Learned Assessing Officer in disallowing the claim for deduction u/s 36(1Xviil) by Rs. 1, 40, 26, 066/-, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well N.A. as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the Learned Assessing Officer ought to have reduced interest on income tax refund of Rs. 22,94,72,711/ income) as well as denominator (i.e. total revenue from operations while calculating deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) and not doing so is wrong and contrary to the facts of the case, the provisions of Act and the Rules made there under.” 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income completed in the case of the assessee on 31.12.2012 determining total income at Rs.1285,98,53,832/ Commissioner of Income tax for the assessment record opportunity to the assessee invoking provisions of section 263 of the Act and directed the Assessing Officer to make fresh assessment in respect of following issues: (i)Allowance of D restricting of asset written back. (ii) Allowance of deduction for Rs.1,44,25,367/ and doubtful debt written back. (iii) The interest on Income tax refund of Rs.22,94,71,711/ been reduced while computing profits and gains of business and the said income was not reduced leading to excess allowance of deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) by Rs.1,40,26,066/ 2.1 In the consequent assessment order passed on 15.02.2016, the Assessing Officer for the purpose of 36(1)(viii) of the Act computed the profits and gains of business after reducing the interest on income tax refund and thereafter computed the deduction amounting to Rs.80,96,44,862/ Small Industries Development Bank of India 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well N.A. as in law, rned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the Learned Assessing Officer ought to have reduced interest on income tax refund of Rs. 22,94,72,711/- from numerator (i.e. business income) as well as denominator (i.e. total revenue from operations while calculating deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) and not doing so is wrong and contrary to the facts of the case, the provisions of Act and the Rules made there under.” Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was completed in the case of the assessee on 31.12.2012 determining total income at Rs.1285,98,53,832/-. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Income tax -3, Mumbai ( in short the ‘PCIT’) for the assessment record and after examination and providing due opportunity to the assessee, set aside the assessment order invoking provisions of section 263 of the Act and directed the Assessing Officer to make fresh assessment in respect of following (i)Allowance of Deduction of Rs.22,49,00,000/- towards provision for restricting of asset written back. (ii) Allowance of deduction for Rs.1,44,25,367/- towards provision for bad and doubtful debt written back. (iii) The interest on Income tax refund of Rs.22,94,71,711/ been reduced while computing profits and gains of business and the said income was not reduced leading to excess allowance of deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) by Rs.1,40,26,066/-. In the consequent assessment order passed on 15.02.2016, sing Officer for the purpose of third issue of 36(1)(viii) of the Act computed the profits and gains of business after reducing the interest on income tax refund and thereafter computed the deduction amounting to Rs.80,96,44,862/ Small Industries Development Bank of India 2 ITA No. 1778/Mum/2023 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well N.A. as in law, rned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the Learned Assessing Officer ought to have reduced interest on income from numerator (i.e. business income) as well as denominator (i.e. total revenue from operations) while calculating deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) and not doing so is wrong and contrary to the facts of the case, the provisions of Act and the Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessment u/s ct, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was completed in the case of the assessee on 31.12.2012 determining . Subsequently, the Principal 3, Mumbai ( in short the ‘PCIT’) called and after examination and providing due set aside the assessment order invoking provisions of section 263 of the Act and directed the Assessing Officer to make fresh assessment in respect of following towards provision for towards provision for bad (iii) The interest on Income tax refund of Rs.22,94,71,711/- should have been reduced while computing profits and gains of business and the said income was not reduced leading to excess allowance of deduction u/s In the consequent assessment order passed on 15.02.2016, third issue of deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act computed the profits and gains of business after reducing the interest on income tax refund and thereafter computed the deduction amounting to Rs.80,96,44,862/-. According to the Assessing Officer, the interest on refund was part of revenue from the operations and therefore, he reduced the said interest of refund only for the purpose of computation of ‘profit and gains of the business quantum of ‘total revenue from operations the Assessing Officer is reproduced as under: 8.4. Apart from the above, in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer allowed the deduction W/S.36(1)(vil) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at Rs.82,71,73,952 u/s.36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act from the profits of business. However, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A) has restored the deduction W/S.36(1) (viii) to assessee's claim at Rs.83,31,54,923. account of additions/ disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts written back and treatment of interest on income tax refund as Income from Other Sources, the business income of the assessee will undergo a change. Accordingly, the deduction a u/s.36(1)(vili) is allowed on the revised income taking into the said aspects in to consideration. The working of deduction allowa as under: I. Business Income as per return Add: Addition made in the order u/s 143(3) OF THE Act Dated 31.12.2012 confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) (i) Amortization of Rent (ii) Disallowance u/s 14A (iii) Bad Debts Disallowed Add: Additions/Disallowance as discussed above. (i) Provision for Bad & Doubtful debts written back (as per Para 7 above) Less: Deduction u/s 36(1)(viia)(c) (As per Asst. order dated 31.12.2012** Income The Assessing Officer in Para 9 has observed that deduction u/s.36(1)(via)(c) of the Act is restricted to the provision created by the assessee amounting to 256,94,84,305. In the present proceedings also, 5% of the enhanced total assessee, therefore the deduction is restricted to the provision created. Profit and gains of business (As per above computation) Small Industries Development Bank of India to the Assessing Officer, the interest on refund was part of revenue from the operations and therefore, he reduced the said interest of refund only for the purpose of profit and gains of the business l revenue from operations’. The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer is reproduced as under: 8.4. Apart from the above, in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer allowed the deduction W/S.36(1)(vil) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at Rs.82,71,73,952 as against Rs.83,31,54,923 by reducing the deduction u/s.36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act from the profits of business. However, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A) has restored the deduction W/S.36(1) (viii) to assessee's claim at Rs.83,31,54,923. account of additions/ disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts written back and treatment of interest on income tax refund as Income from Other Sources, the business income of the assessee will undergo a Accordingly, the deduction allowable to the assessee company u/s.36(1)(vili) is allowed on the revised income taking into the said aspects in to consideration. The working of deduction allowable to the assessee is Rs. Business Income as per return Addition made in the order u/s 143(3) OF THE Act Dated 31.12.2012 confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) Amortization of Rent 60,79,783 Disallowance u/s 14A 3,30,83,433 Bad Debts Disallowed 36,07,44,658 Additions/Disallowance as discussed above. Provision for Bad & Doubtful debts written back (as per Para 7 above) Deduction u/s 36(1)(viia)(c) (As per Asst. order dated 31.12.2012** Income from Business/Profession The Assessing Officer in Para 9 has observed that deduction u/s.36(1)(via)(c) of the Act is restricted to the provision created by the assessee amounting to 256,94,84,305. In the present proceedings also, 5% enhanced total income exceeds the provision created by the assessee, therefore the deduction is restricted to the provision created. Profit and gains of business (As per above 1324,61,52,014 Small Industries Development Bank of India 3 ITA No. 1778/Mum/2023 to the Assessing Officer, the interest on income tax refund was part of revenue from the operations and therefore, he reduced the said interest of refund only for the purpose of profit and gains of the business’ and not for . The relevant finding of 8.4. Apart from the above, in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer allowed the deduction W/S.36(1)(vil) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at as against Rs.83,31,54,923 by reducing the deduction u/s.36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act from the profits of business. However, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A) has restored the deduction W/S.36(1) (viii) to assessee's claim at Rs.83,31,54,923. However, on account of additions/ disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts written back and treatment of interest on income tax refund as Income from Other Sources, the business income of the assessee will undergo a llowable to the assessee company u/s.36(1)(vili) is allowed on the revised income taking into the said aspects ble to the assessee is Rs. 1363,07,75,789 39,99,07,874 1,44,25,367 1381,56,36,319 56,94,84,305 1324,61,52,014 The Assessing Officer in Para 9 has observed that deduction u/s.36(1)(via)(c) of the Act is restricted to the provision created by the assessee amounting to 256,94,84,305. In the present proceedings also, 5% exceeds the provision created by the assessee, therefore the deduction is restricted to the provision created. 1324,61,52,014 (A) Revenue from long term finance Total Revenue from operations Deduction allowable 20%*A*B/C Accordingly, the deduction U/s.36(1)(vi) is allowed at 80,96,44,862/ 3. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the finding of the Assessing Officer that the interest on income tax the total revenue from the operations. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “Decision on Ground No. 2 The appellant company has received an amount of Rs. 22,94,72,711/ way of Interest on Income Tax refund. The appellant has not considered the same as Income from Other Sources, and thus, not reduced the same from the business income. As a result of the same, the appellant computed the deduction u/s 36(1) (vi) of the Inco income, which included said interest on income tax refund. In this regard, the appellant submitted that the deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) is allowable in respect of reserves created out of profits & gains computed under the head Business. The Ld.A stated that the appellant is wrong in interpreting that the income earned by way of interest on income tax refund should be deducted from total income (denominator in the formula). Further, nowhere the formula is defined to calculate t eligible business'. It has to be ascertained in a practical manner keeping the nature of business of the appellant in mind. While proportionating the profit of the business between eligible and non eligible business, the numerator shall be the receipt of the eligible business and denominator shall be the total revenue. interest on Income Tax Clearly, it is not part of profit of revenue. In view of the above submissions and information, I do not find any justification to interfere with the A's order and I do not find any merit in the appeal of the appellant. Hence this ground of appeal is, accordin disallowed and decided as above. 4. Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee referred to the order of the Tribunal passed in ITA No. 2996 and 2997/Mum/2015 for assessment year 2010 quashed the order passed b respect of two issues namely issue of allowance of deduction of Small Industries Development Bank of India Revenue from long term finance 938,85,59,239(B) Total Revenue from operations 3072,02,05,538(C) Deduction allowable 20%*A*B/C 80,96,44,862 Accordingly, the deduction U/s.36(1)(vi) is allowed at 80,96,44,862/ On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the finding of the Officer that the interest on income tax refund revenue from the operations. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “Decision on Ground No. 2 The appellant company has received an amount of Rs. 22,94,72,711/ way of Interest on Income Tax refund. The appellant has not considered the same as Income from Other Sources, and thus, not reduced the same from the business income. As a result of the same, the appellant computed the deduction u/s 36(1) (vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the business income, which included said interest on income tax refund. In this regard, the appellant submitted that the deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) is allowable in respect of reserves created out of profits & gains computed d Business. The Ld.A stated that the appellant is wrong in interpreting that the income earned by way of interest on income tax refund should be deducted from total income (denominator in the formula). Further, nowhere the formula is defined to calculate the profit derived from eligible business'. It has to be ascertained in a practical manner keeping the nature of business of the appellant in mind. While proportionating the profit of the business between eligible and non eligible business, the all be the receipt of the eligible business and denominator shall be the total revenue. Therefore, appellant is not correct in saying that interest on Income Tax Refund should be deducted from both places. Clearly, it is not part of profit of eligible business but should be part of total In view of the above submissions and information, I do not find any justification to interfere with the A's order and I do not find any merit in the appeal of the appellant. Hence this ground of appeal is, accordin disallowed and decided as above.” Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee referred to the order of the Tribunal passed in ITA No. 2996 and 2997/Mum/2015 for assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12, wherein the Tribunal has quashed the order passed by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act in respect of two issues namely issue of allowance of deduction of Small Industries Development Bank of India 4 ITA No. 1778/Mum/2023 938,85,59,239(B) 3072,02,05,538(C) 80,96,44,862 Accordingly, the deduction U/s.36(1)(vi) is allowed at 80,96,44,862/-.” On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the finding of the refund is part of revenue from the operations. The relevant finding of the The appellant company has received an amount of Rs. 22,94,72,711/- by way of Interest on Income Tax refund. The appellant has not considered the same as Income from Other Sources, and thus, not reduced the same from the business income. As a result of the same, the appellant computed me Tax Act, 1961 on the business In this regard, the appellant submitted that the deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) is allowable in respect of reserves created out of profits & gains computed d Business. The Ld.A stated that the appellant is wrong in interpreting that the income earned by way of interest on income tax refund should be deducted from total income (denominator in the formula). he profit derived from eligible business'. It has to be ascertained in a practical manner keeping the nature of business of the appellant in mind. While proportionating the profit of the business between eligible and non eligible business, the all be the receipt of the eligible business and denominator Therefore, appellant is not correct in saying that Refund should be deducted from both places. ness but should be part of total In view of the above submissions and information, I do not find any justification to interfere with the A's order and I do not find any merit in the appeal of the appellant. Hence this ground of appeal is, accordingly, Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee referred to the order of the Tribunal passed in ITA No. 2996 and 2997/Mum/2015 for 12, wherein the Tribunal has y the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act in respect of two issues namely issue of allowance of deduction of Rs.22.43 crores towards provision for restructuring of assets written back and Rs.1.44 crores towards provision of bad and doubtful debt written back. As f on income-tax refund for computation of deduction u/s 36(1)(vii the Act, the Tribunal directed that order of the Assessing Officer was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue however directed that while computing the excess deduction u/s 36(1)(viii), the Assessing Officer should exclude and gains of business’ operations’. The Ld. Counsel before us submitted that the Assessing Officer has not complied with the direction of the Tribunal (supra). 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act in the manner as under: total revenue from the operations 5.1 We find that according to the Ld. PCIT refund’ was not being part of the therefore, said interest of the Act. The excess deduction allowed by the Deduction = 20% [Profit and gains of the business ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Small Industries Development Bank of India Rs.22.43 crores towards provision for restructuring of assets written back and Rs.1.44 crores towards provision of bad and doubtful debt written back. As far as 3 rd issue of excluding tax refund for computation of deduction u/s 36(1)(vii the Tribunal directed that order of the Assessing Officer was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue however directed that ng the excess deduction u/s 36(1)(viii), the Assessing Officer should exclude ‘interest on income-tax refund of business’ and also from the ‘total revenue from . The Ld. Counsel before us submitted that the Assessing cer has not complied with the direction of the Tribunal (supra). We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act in respect of long term finance as under: total revenue from the operations We find that according to the Ld. PCIT ‘interest of income was not being part of the ‘profit and gains of the business therefore, said interest was not eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act. The excess deduction allowed by the Assessing Officer in [Profit and gains of the business X Revenue from long term finance] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Small Industries Development Bank of India 5 ITA No. 1778/Mum/2023 Rs.22.43 crores towards provision for restructuring of assets written back and Rs.1.44 crores towards provision of bad and excluding interest tax refund for computation of deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Tribunal directed that order of the Assessing Officer was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue however directed that ng the excess deduction u/s 36(1)(viii), the Assessing tax refund’ from ‘profit total revenue from . The Ld. Counsel before us submitted that the Assessing cer has not complied with the direction of the Tribunal (supra). We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. The deduction ng term finance is computed interest of income-tax profit and gains of the business’ was not eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) Assessing Officer in Revenue from long term finance] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ the original assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 31.12.2012 has been 28.03.2015 to be recomputed as under: viii) In this regard, it is noted that for the year under consideration, the assessee had interest income of Rs.22,94,72,711/ tax refund (vide note 20 to the balance sheet) and this was included in other income in P&L A/c, This income being income from other sources, it should have been reduced while computing However, this was not done, leading to excess allowance of deduction by Rs,l,40,26,066/ Profit and gains of business as per para 6 of A.O] Less: Income from other sources Profits and gains of business Revenue from long term finance Total Revenue from operations Deduction allowable 20%*A*B/C Deduction actually allowed Excess allowed 5.1 However, the Tribunal Assessing Officer that amount of should not only be reduced from the business’ but also from the 5.2 In the case there is no dispute as far as profit and gains of the business and revenue from long term finance above formula, computed dispute is regarding the quantum of total revenue from the operations i.e. denominator of the above formula assessee the amount of interest on income tax refund shoul reduced from the total revenue not derived from the operations of the assessee bank. We agree with Small Industries Development Bank of India the original assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 31.12.2012 has been directed by the Ld. PCIT in order dated computed as under: viii) In this regard, it is noted that for the year under consideration, the assessee had interest income of Rs.22,94,72,711/- on account of income tax refund (vide note 20 to the balance sheet) and this was included in other income in P&L A/c, This income being income from other sources, it should have been reduced while computing profits and gains of business. However, this was not done, leading to excess allowance of deduction by Rs,l,40,26,066/- and the detailed working is as under: (in Profit and gains of business as per para 6 of A.O] 13532935769 Less: Income from other sources 229472711 Profits and gains of business 13303463058(A) Revenue from long term finance 9388559239(B) Total Revenue from operations 30720205538 (C) Deduction allowable 20%*A*B/C 813147886/ Deduction actually allowed 827173952/ Excess allowed 14026066/ However, the Tribunal (supra) gave a specific direction to the Assessing Officer that amount of ‘interest on income should not only be reduced from the ‘profit and gains of the but also from the ‘total revenue from operations In the case there is no dispute as far as profit and gains of the business and revenue from long term finance i.e. numerator of above formula, computed by the Assessing Officer. The only issue in dispute is regarding the quantum of total revenue from the i.e. denominator of the above formula. According to the assessee the amount of interest on income tax refund shoul ced from the total revenue from the operations also not derived from the operations of the assessee bank. We agree with Small Industries Development Bank of India 6 ITA No. 1778/Mum/2023 the original assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated directed by the Ld. PCIT in order dated viii) In this regard, it is noted that for the year under consideration, the on account of income tax refund (vide note 20 to the balance sheet) and this was included in other income in P&L A/c, This income being income from other sources, it profits and gains of business. However, this was not done, leading to excess allowance of deduction by (in rupees) 13532935769 229472711 13303463058(A) 9388559239(B) 30720205538 (C) 813147886/- 827173952/- 14026066/- gave a specific direction to the interest on income-tax refund’ profit and gains of the operations’. In the case there is no dispute as far as profit and gains of the i.e. numerator of the by the Assessing Officer. The only issue in dispute is regarding the quantum of total revenue from the . According to the assessee the amount of interest on income tax refund should be from the operations also as same is not derived from the operations of the assessee bank. We agree with the arguments of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee because interest on income-tax refund is not part of the business a assessee and therefore, same cannot be form part of the total revenue from the operations excluded for the purpose of quantum of total revenue from the operations. We find that the Tribunal in ITA No. 2996 and 2997/Mum/2015 has also directed the Assessing Officer to exclude the interest on income tax refund both from the profits and gains of the business as well accordingly set aside the finding of the lower authorities a the Assessing Officer to reduce the quantum of interest of income tax refund from the total revenue from operations and thereafter compute the deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act accordingly. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingly 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 05/09/2023 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai Small Industries Development Bank of India the arguments of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee because interest tax refund is not part of the business a assessee and therefore, same cannot be form part of the total revenue from the operations also therefore, same should be excluded for the purpose of quantum of total revenue from the operations. We find that the Tribunal in ITA No. 2996 and 2997/Mum/2015 has also directed the Assessing Officer to exclude the interest on income tax refund both from the profits and gains of well as total revenue from the operations. We accordingly set aside the finding of the lower authorities a the Assessing Officer to reduce the quantum of interest of income tax refund from the total revenue from operations and thereafter compute the deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act accordingly. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingly allowed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. nced in the open Court on 05/09 Sd/- PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : Small Industries Development Bank of India 7 ITA No. 1778/Mum/2023 the arguments of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee because interest tax refund is not part of the business activity of the assessee and therefore, same cannot be form part of the total therefore, same should be excluded for the purpose of quantum of total revenue from the operations. We find that the Tribunal in ITA No. 2996 and 2997/Mum/2015 has also directed the Assessing Officer to exclude the interest on income tax refund both from the profits and gains of as total revenue from the operations. We accordingly set aside the finding of the lower authorities and direct the Assessing Officer to reduce the quantum of interest of income- tax refund from the total revenue from operations and thereafter compute the deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act accordingly. The allowed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. /09/2023. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Small Industries Development Bank of India BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Small Industries Development Bank of India 8 ITA No. 1778/Mum/2023 BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai
Other Referred Cases
ITA No. 2996 and 2997/Mum/2015
Laws Referred To
Income Tax Act, 1961
1:1 Consultation on SME Listing
₹0
1:1 Consultation on FEMA Compliance
₹1
Consultation on Entity Formation
₹0
Income Tax Act 2025
₹0
Affidavit - Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before ITAT - Type 2
Mehul₹0
Why Lacoste Won a 20-Year Trademark Battle Against Crocodile ?
Team Counselvise - March 10, 2026
Finance Bill, 2026: Key GST Reforms that will Reshape Compliance and Cash Flows
Team Counselvise - February 03, 2026
Finance Bill, 2026: Key Direct Tax Amendments on Assessments and Appeals
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026