MSMED s.23 — the law in short
What the courts have decided on section MSMED s.23, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.
-
Bosch Ltd v ACIT
ITATHelps departmentNo later treatment found
You paid interest on a delayed payment to an MSME supplier. Can you claim it?
No, and the Tribunal decided it by adoption rather than by reasoning. Counsel accepted that an identical issue had arisen in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2010-11, and the Bench reproduced its earlier order of 16 September 2020, which held that s.23 of the MSMED Act specifically provides that interest paid to micro, small and medium enterprises on account of delayed payment is not allowable as a deduction from income, that such interest is penal in nature and so is otherwise not allowable under s.37, and that s.24 of that Act has overriding effect to the extent of inconsistent provisions in any other law. The Bench's own holding is one sentence at para 73: following that order, it dismissed Ground No.11.
-
Landis+Gyr Ltd v DCIT
ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
MSMED interest is disallowed under the normal provisions. Does it also have to be added back to book profit?
No - and the Tribunal decided it by adoption. It noted that the issue raised in Ground No. 10 had been decided by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case by its consolidated order dated 13 September 2017 for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, reproduced that order, and allowed the ground on the strength of it. The reasoning reproduced is that s.23 of the MSMED Act operates on the computation of income under the normal provisions and not on the computation of book profit under s.115JB, and that a provision for interest payable to MSMED suppliers, being an ascertained liability, does not have to be added back.
Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.
