COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S BHUSHAN STEELS & STRIPS LT
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer could charge interest under Sections 234B and 234C while processing the return under Section 143(1)(a) and computing income under Section 115JA. This decision was based on a Supreme Court ruling.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed ITAT orders concerning the charging of interest under Sections 234B and 234C during the processing of returns under Section 143(1)(a) and computation of income under Section 115JA. The High Court framed a specific question of law regarding this issue.
What were the issues?
Whether interest under Sections 234B and 234C can be charged during processing under Section 143(1)(a) and computation under Section 115JA.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- JCIT v. Rolta India Ltd.44 citing330 ITR 470 · 2011 · SC · Read judgment
$~R88, 89, 90 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA Nos. 431/2005 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Junior Standing Counsel for Revenue. Versus M/S BHUSHAN STEELS & STRIPS LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Kavita Jha, Ms. Roopali Gupta, Advocates. WITH ITA Nos. 435/2005 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Junior Standing Counsel for Revenue. Versus M/S BHUSHAN STEELS & STRIPS LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Kavita Jha, Ms. Roopali Gupta, Advocates WITH ITA Nos. 440/2005 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior
Standing Counsel with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Junior Standing Counsel for Revenue. Versus M/S BHUSHAN STEELS & STRIPS LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Kavita Jha, Ms. Roopali Gupta, Advocates CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R % 04.08.2017 1. These appeals by the Revenue are against the orders dated 20th January, 2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA Nos. 1127 and 1129/Del/2002 for the Assessment Years (‘AY’s) 1999-2000 and 2000-01 respectively and the order dated 11th January 2005 of the ITAT in and 2983/Del/2003 for AY 2001-02. 2. By the order dated 5th August 2005, this Court framed the following question of law in these appeals: “Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the Assessing Officer could not have charged interest under Section 234B and 234C while processing the return under Section 143(1)(a) and computing the income under Section 115JA of the Income Tax Act, 1961” 3. The admitted position is that the above question stands answered in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee by the decision of the Supreme Court in JCIT v. Rolta India Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 470 (SC).
In the circumstances, the question of law framed in these appeals is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. 5. These appeals are allowed in the above terms. S.MURALIDHAR, J PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J AUGUST 04, 2017 j
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- The Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/S Ibm India LtdKarnataka10 Apr 2013Partly Allowed
Also relies on JCIT v. Rolta India Ltd.
The High Court held that the provision for warranty liability, if based on a scientific approach and past experience, is allowable as revenue expenditure. Software purchases were also deemed revenue expenditure. However,...
- M/S Best Trading & Agencies Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income TaxKarnataka26 Aug 2020Allowed
Also relies on JCIT v. Rolta India Ltd.
The Tribunal erred in holding there was no nexus between interest earned and interest paid, and in disallowing the interest expenditure. The High Court also held that indexed cost of acquisition should be allowed for com...
- Ellora Time Private Limited vs Joint Commissioner of Income TaxGujarat2 Dec 2014Allowed
Also decided under Section 115JA with the same outcome
The High Court held that the questions raised in the appeal were required to be answered in favour of the assessee. For Question 1, the Court referred to its earlier decision dated 20.11.2014 in Tax Appeal No. 1665 of 20...
- Commissioner of Incomet Tax vs M/S Nahar Spinnig MillsPunjab & Haryana6 Jul 2011Allowed
Also decided under Section 115JA with the same outcome
The High Court found substantial force in the submissions of the revenue. It noted that the initial return was processed under Section 143(1)(a), and a subsequent assessment was framed under Section 143(3)/147. The Court...
- The Commissioner of Income Tax vs Ved SinghPunjab & Haryana15 Jul 2010Allowed
Also decided under Section 115JA with the same outcome
The High Court, in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Joint Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rolta India Ltd., held that Section 115J/115JA are special provisions, but all other provisions of the Act apply to a Minimum...
More judgments on Section 115JA
- DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs M/S. Aragen Life Sciences Limited, HyderabadITA 639/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16
- Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd… vs The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(1), BarodaITA 1246/AHD/2012[2003-04]Status: Disposed19 Jun 2025AY 2003-04
- Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad vs Regency Ceramics Limited, HyderabadITA 1350/HYD/2024[1998-99]Status: Disposed2 Jun 2025AY 1998-99
- Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad vs Regency Ceramics Limited, HyderabadITA 1340/HYD/2024[2002-2003]Status: Disposed2 Jun 2025AY 2002-2003
- Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 (1), Hyderabad vs Regency Ceramics Limited, HyderabadITA 1339/HYD/2024[2001-2002]Status: Disposed2 Jun 2025AY 2001-2002
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026