High Court of Judicature at Madras · Judgments and reasoned final orders
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/s. Apollo Infrastructure Projects Finance Co. Ltd.
T.C.A. No. 580 of 2013 ·
Companion appeal disposal following coordinate-bench rulings on section 14A/10(23G) and consequential section 234D interest; source text contains a printed question/reasoning mismatch.
1. FACTS OF THE CASE
The Revenue appealed under section 260A against the ITAT Madras 'D' Bench order dated 29.08.2011 in ITA No. 1337/Mds/2010. No appearance was entered for the respondent-assessee despite cause-list publication. Paragraph 2 of the judgment sets out two questions admitted on 04.04.2014 concerning whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 10(23G) on long-term capital gains from the sale of shares of PPN Power Generating Co. Ltd. when investments had been made from April 1991 onwards in demat form prior to 01.06.1998.
2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT
In paragraph 3, the Division Bench stated that the same question had been decided adverse to the Revenue in T.C.A. No. 417 of 2009 dated 09.12.2025 following T.C.A. No. 567 of 2008 for AY 2003-04, and extracted paragraphs 11-18 of the latter decision. In that extracted decision, the coordinate bench distinguished Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT, [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC) and held that because the assessee did not earn any exempt dividend income on the equity shares during the relevant year, no disallowance of debenture interest or finance charges could be made under section 14A. In paragraph 4, the Bench applied that decision on what it recorded as admittedly identical facts and legal position, and further held that the question of charging interest under section 234D consequently did not arise.
3. JUDICIAL DECISION
Both questions of law were answered adverse to the Revenue and in favour of the assessee, and the Tax Case (Appeal) was dismissed with no order as to costs.
4. OUTCOME
In favour of the assessee (Apollo Infrastructure Projects Finance Co. Ltd.). The Revenue's appeal was dismissed without costs.
5. AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: exercise strict caution before citing this judgment for either section 10(23G) or section 14A/234D because of the internal divergence between the admitted questions printed in paragraph 2 (section 10(23G) capital-gains exemption) and the operative reasoning and conclusion in paragraphs 3-4 (section 14A disallowance in the absence of exempt income and consequential section 234D interest). Always examine the underlying ITAT order in ITA No. 1337/Mds/2010 and check whether a corrigendum was issued.
Source and verification
Eight-page official Madras High Court PDF (2026:MHC:368); paragraphs 1-4 and quoted coordinate-bench extract span PDF pages 1-8.
Original PDF: 8 pages · SHA-256: 85998e736d2f938ad0b62c0f49141d7d770f26b96a2ca8caee48fe53e6818f73
Supplied source-reviewed note retained; original bytes and identity validation checked in this release. Substantive re-review is not claimed for this record.
Refers to historical section 10(23G) (omitted by Finance Act, 2006), section 14A (prior to Finance Act, 2022 Explanation), and section 234D of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Income-tax Act, 2025 equivalence is not verified.
Full judgment checked. Companion orders in T.C.A. No. 567 of 2008 and T.C.A. No. 417 of 2009 are referenced in the text but not separately verified here.
AI disclosure and professional disclaimer
AI-assisted source review. Independent human approval is not represented.
General research only. Read the complete judgment and verify applicable law and subsequent treatment before reliance.