{"id":2322,"date":"2010-12-04T17:20:08","date_gmt":"2010-12-04T11:50:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=2322"},"modified":"2010-12-04T17:20:08","modified_gmt":"2010-12-04T11:50:08","slug":"cit-vs-vasisth-chay-vyapar-delhi-high-court-interest-on-npa-not-assessable-on-accrual-basis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-vasisth-chay-vyapar-delhi-high-court-interest-on-npa-not-assessable-on-accrual-basis\/","title":{"rendered":"CIT vs. Vasisth Chay Vyapar (Delhi High Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=292\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=292&varname2=vashist_npa_interest_not_taxable.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (vashist_npa_interest_not_taxable.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong>Interest on NPA not assessable on &#8220;accrual&#8221; basis<br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The assessee, a NBFC, advanced Inter Corporate Deposits (ICD) to Shaw Wallace. <em>As the interest was not received by the assessee for more than six months in view of the adverse financial position of the borrower, the assessee treated the ICD as a Non Performing Asset (NPA) in terms of the directions of the RBI and did not account for the interest<\/em>. However, the AO held that as the assessee was following the <em>mercantile system of accounting, the interest had \u201caccrued\u201d<\/em> even if it was not actually realized. This was confirmed by the CIT (A) though reversed by the Tribunal. On appeal by the department, HELD dismissing the appeal:<\/p>\n<p>U\/s 45Q of the RBI Act read with the NBFCs Prudential Norms (Reserve Bank) Directions 1998, <strong>it was mandatory on the part of the assessee not to recognize the interest on the ICD as it had become a NPA<\/strong>. The assessee was bound to compute income having regard to the recognized accounting principles set out in Accounting Standard AS-9. <strong>AS-9 provides that if there are uncertainties as to recognition of revenue, the revenue should not be recognized<\/strong>.  Accordingly, the argument of the revenue that the interest on the NPA can be said to have accrued despite it being a NPA is not acceptable. <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/southern-technologies-ltd-vs-jcit-supreme-court\">Southern Technologies vs. JCIT<\/a><\/strong> 320 ITR 577 (SC) distinguished. <strong>Elgi Finance<\/strong> 293 ITR 357 (Mad) followed. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>U\/s 45Q of the RBI Act read with the NBFCs Prudential Norms (Reserve Bank) Directions 1998, <strong>it was mandatory on the part of the assessee not to recognize the interest on the ICD as it had become a NPA<\/strong>. The assessee was bound to compute income having regard to the recognized accounting principles set out in Accounting Standard AS-9. <strong>AS-9 provides that if there are uncertainties as to recognition of revenue, the revenue should not be recognized<\/strong>.  Accordingly, the argument of the revenue that the interest on the NPA can be said to have accrued despite it being a NPA is not acceptable. <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/southern-technologies-ltd-vs-jcit-supreme-court\">Southern Technologies vs. JCIT<\/a><\/strong> 320 ITR 577 (SC) distinguished. <strong>Elgi Finance<\/strong> 293 ITR 357 (Mad) followed<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-vasisth-chay-vyapar-delhi-high-court-interest-on-npa-not-assessable-on-accrual-basis\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2322","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-high-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2322","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2322"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2322\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2322"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2322"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2322"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}