Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 201 ITR 684; Malwa Vanaspati and Chemical Co. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 37(1), Section 201(1A), Section 143(3), Section 14A, Section 250, Section 43B.

201 ITR 684; Malwa Vanaspati and Chemical Co. v. CIT

Q: How many judgments cite 201 ITR 684; Malwa Vanaspati and Chemical Co. v. CIT?

44 judgments on BharatTax cite 201 ITR 684; Malwa Vanaspati and Chemical Co. v. CIT (205 ITR 163), spanning 2015 to 2026.

205 ITR 163Supreme Court of India1994#2624 most cited

What is 201 ITR 684; Malwa Vanaspati and Chemical Co. v. CIT authority for?

The Supreme Court holds that indirect taxes paid in the course of business are admissible as business expenditure under Section 37(1). Additionally, compensatory interest incurred on delayed payment of such indirect taxes is also allowable as a business expenditure.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Malwa Vanaspati and Chemical Co. v. CIT · Malwa Vanaspati · Section 37(1) · business expenditure · indirect tax · compensatory interest · allowable deduction · interest on tax liability · disallowance 201(1A) · income tax expenditure

Sections most often in play

Section 37(1)Section 201(1A)Section 143(3)Section 14A Section 250 Section 43B Section 69C Section 115-BBE(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 215 interest under section 201(1a)section 221 section 2(28a)section 40(a)(ii)section 201(1a)explanation to section 37 eligible business prohibited by law section 201 section 11(2)section 220

Judgments citing 201 ITR 684; Malwa Vanaspati and Chemical Co. v. CIT

DCIT 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Pranav Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1144/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am)

For Appellant: Ms.Mahua Sarkar

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

…ons 1997 could not be treated as penalty as it is a payment for regularizing the default committed hence such payment can not be disallowed by invoking explanation to s. 37(1).,  The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Ahmedabad Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1993] 205 ITR 163 has held that, “Penalty paid under option conferred on assessee under the concerned law or scheme itself is deductible – What needs to be done by an assessing authority under the Income-tax Act in examining the claim of an assessee that the payment made by such 'assessee was a deductible expenditure under section 37, although called penalty, is t…

Oberoi Realty Ltd ( Formelry Known As Kingston Properties P.Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 23, Mumbai

ITA 1050/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 Oberoi Realty Limited (Formerly Acit, Cc-23, R. No. 409, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Known As Kingston Properties Pvt. Ltd.) Commerz, 3Rd Floor, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 International Business Park, Oberoi Vs. Garden City, Off Wstern Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai- 400063. Pan: Aabck0235H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Bist (DR)

Section 14ASection 3Section 37(1)Section 80A(5)Section 80ISection 80r

…d as M/s M.P.Gupta vs. ITO, wherein the coordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal while relying upon the judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Cotton Mills P. Ltd. vs. CIT[1993] 201 ITR 684 (SC) and CIT vs. Ahmedabad Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1994] 205 ITR 163 (SC) , held that statutory impost paid as damages, penalty or interest, if compensatory in nature, it is allowable as business expenditure. The Id Sr. Counsel for the assessee also draw attention to the order of the ld. CIT(A) wherein reference was made to cases of T. Khemchand Tejoomal, 161 ITR 492 and Agra Leathers Ltd. ITR 792. The Id. Sr. Cou…

Oberoi Constructions Ltd ( Formerly Known As Oberoi Consructions P. Ltd ), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 23, Mumbai

ITA 1010/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 Oberoi Constructions Ltd. (Formerly Acit, Cc-23, R. No. 409, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Known As Oberoi Constructions Pvt. Ltd.) Commerz, 3Rd Floor, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 International Business Park, Oberoi Vs. Garden City, Off Estern Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai- 400063. Pan: Aaaco1805E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Bist (DR)

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 37(1)

M/S. Matrix Infrastructure, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5428/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm & Sh. O.P.Kant, Am

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 40

…ness activity of the assessee and business was already set up , therefore, the interest was allowable as business expenditure. Further, the ld. AR relied on the following judicial pronouncements reported in 196 ITR 421(Cal), 222 ITR 772(P&H), 135 ITR 811(MP), 205 ITR 163(SC), 107 ITR 172(Guj). As regards to the balance interest expenditure of Rs.17,36,671/-, the ld. AR submitted that all the advances were made for the purpose of business and the capital was withdrawn by one of the partner M/s Chandana Developers at the fag end of the previous year i.e. 21/03/2007 out of the capital of Rs.6-7 crores contributed by…