Skip to main content

Waiver Of Interest To Be Treated As Income In Hands Of Assessee

Supreme Court of India in M/s McDowell v. CIT Karnataka held that to ascertain the actual accumulated loses to be set off in the hands of the assesssee first adjust the income that is accruing to it on account of waiver of interest by financial institutions.

The Bench of Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan was considering an appeal against the Judgment of Karnataka High Court whereby the appeal of Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) was allowed setting aside the order to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) which had granted the benefit of provisions of Section 72A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the appellant-assessee.

In the instant matter, M/s Hindustan Polymers Ltd. (HPL) had become a sick industrial company and was amalgamated with appellant-assesssee company i.e. M/s McDowell and Company Ltd. Since HPL was a sick industrial undertaking it owed a lot of money to banks and financial institutions. The interest was claimed as expenditure by HPL in its return and by the virtue of section 72A of the Income Tax Act, assessee was allowed to carry forward and set off accumulated loses and unabsorbed depreciation allowances of HPL in the event of amalgamation.

After the scheme of amalgamation, banks and financial institutions which have advanced loans to HPL agreed to waive off interest which had accrued prior to 01.04.1977.

Since this interest was waived off it became income in the hands of HPL as per section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has claimed a set off of the accumulated loses which it had taken over from HPL.  After the amalgamation it was observed that the income which has accrued under section 41 (1) of the Act has not been set off against the accumulated loses. The assessing officer adjusted this income against the losses. On an appeal to ITAT by the assessee it was that the aforesaid income under section 41(1) is not in the hands of the assessee rather it is the income of HPL and since HPL is a separate entity, assessee is not liable to pay any tax on this income.

However, the Supreme Court held that since the assessee has taken over HPL and HPL has ceased to exist as a legal entity, the income tax will be payable in the hands of the assessee. When the assessee is allowed the benefit of the accumulated loses, while computing those loses, the income which accrued to it had to be adjusted and only thereafter net loses could have been allowed to be set off by the assessee company. Assessee cannot take the advantage of the accumulated loses and refuse to account for income accrued under section 41(1) of the Act.


Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376
2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551
3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467
4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298
5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567)

5.The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i)Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii)Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a)Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b)Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii)Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv)Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v)Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects…

Passport - DRT - power to impound - High Court

1) Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D.Ramarathnam. Asst. Passport Officer, 1967 (3) SCR 52
2) Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 (1) SCC 248
3) Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. v. Grapco Industries Ltd., (1994) 4 SCC 710
4) Suresh Nanda v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2008 (3) SCC 674
5) Damji Valaji Shah & another Vs. L.I.C. of India & others [AIR 1966 SC 135]
6) Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & others [1999 (7) SCC 76]
7) Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and others [AIR 1999 SC 3125]
8) Sanjeev R.Apte v. I.F.C.I. Ltd., and others, 2008 (154) DLT 77
9) Smt.Annai Jayabharathi v. The Debt Recovery Tribunal & Anr., CDJ 2005 Ker HC 171
10) Allahabad Bank v. Radhakrishna Maity, AIR 1999 SC 3426
11) Ramalinga v. Radha, 2011 (4) CTC 481
12) Sinnaswami Chettiar v. Aligi Goundan and others, AIR 1924 Madras 893 (OVERRULED)
13) Nallagatti Goundan v. Ramana Gounda and others, AIR 1925 Madras 170
14) Income Tax Officer v. M.K.Mohammad…


Who is Necessary to Proper Party

Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Razia Begum v. Anwar Begum, [1959] SCR 1111, relied on. Amon v. Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd., (1956) 1 All E.R. 273 and Dollfus Mieg et Compagnie S.A. v. Bank of England, (1950) 2 All E.R. 611, referred to.

National Textile Workers’ Union, etc. v. P.R. Ramakrishnan and Ors., [1983] 1 SCR 922,


Meaning of Necessary or Proper Party

Whether Court could direct plaintiff to add lessee as defendant in suit.

Whether Court has discretion to direct a plaintiff, though dominus litis, to implead a person as a necessary party.

The Supreme Court of India in Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation, Greater Bombay, (1992) 2 SCC 524 : 1992 (2) SCR 1 : JT 1992 (2) SC 136 : 1992 (1) Scale 530 : 1992 (1) CCC 594 : 1992 (1) RCR 644 : 1992 (2) UJ 181 held that a party can be joined as defendant even though the plaintiff does not think that he has any cause of action against him.

A bench comprisi…