5 However, in ACIT v. Bhanvi Agro (P) Ltd.

51 SOT 182Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2012#15929 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2021.

Issues it is cited on

section 226section 14a(1)section 211explanation to section 37section 115jasection 114period of holdingsection 135prohibited by lawinterest on securitiessection 139(5)section 21

Judgments citing 5 However, in ACIT v. Bhanvi Agro (P) Ltd.

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Central Warehousing Corp., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue, i

ITA 5784/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 36

…for purchase of capital asset after commencement of business is allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act as the interest paid was not in the nature of penalty for infraction of law. 5.9.5 However, in ACIT V. Bhanvi Agro (P) Ltd. (2012) 32 CCH 288 Jodhpur Trib: (2012) 51 SOT 182 (Jodh) (URO), it has been held that compounding fee under Sales Tax Act, debited to the A/c ‘Sales Tax' is not allowable as amount paid for infraction of law is not allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act. 5.9.6 Therefore, under the provision of Explanation to section 37(1) of the Act, the expenditure incurred for any purposes, which is an offence or whic…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Central Warehousing Corp., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue, i

ITA 3440/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 36

…for purchase of capital asset after commencement of business is allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act as the interest paid was not in the nature of penalty for infraction of law. 5.9.5 However, in ACIT V. Bhanvi Agro (P) Ltd. (2012) 32 CCH 288 Jodhpur Trib: (2012) 51 SOT 182 (Jodh) (URO), it has been held that compounding fee under Sales Tax Act, debited to the A/c ‘Sales Tax' is not allowable as amount paid for infraction of law is not allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act. 5.9.6 Therefore, under the provision of Explanation to section 37(1) of the Act, the expenditure incurred for any purposes, which is an offence or whic…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Central Warehousing Corp., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue, i

ITA 3439/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 36

…for purchase of capital asset after commencement of business is allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act as the interest paid was not in the nature of penalty for infraction of law. 5.9.5 However, in ACIT V. Bhanvi Agro (P) Ltd. (2012) 32 CCH 288 Jodhpur Trib: (2012) 51 SOT 182 (Jodh) (URO), it has been held that compounding fee under Sales Tax Act, debited to the A/c ‘Sales Tax' is not allowable as amount paid for infraction of law is not allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act. 5.9.6 Therefore, under the provision of Explanation to section 37(1) of the Act, the expenditure incurred for any purposes, which is an offence or whic…

M/S. Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue, i

ITA 2201/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 36

…for purchase of capital asset after commencement of business is allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act as the interest paid was not in the nature of penalty for infraction of law. 5.9.5 However, in ACIT V. Bhanvi Agro (P) Ltd. (2012) 32 CCH 288 Jodhpur Trib: (2012) 51 SOT 182 (Jodh) (URO), it has been held that compounding fee under Sales Tax Act, debited to the A/c ‘Sales Tax' is not allowable as amount paid for infraction of law is not allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act. 5.9.6 Therefore, under the provision of Explanation to section 37(1) of the Act, the expenditure incurred for any purposes, which is an offence or whic…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue, i

ITA 3942/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 36

…for purchase of capital asset after commencement of business is allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act as the interest paid was not in the nature of penalty for infraction of law. 5.9.5 However, in ACIT V. Bhanvi Agro (P) Ltd. (2012) 32 CCH 288 Jodhpur Trib: (2012) 51 SOT 182 (Jodh) (URO), it has been held that compounding fee under Sales Tax Act, debited to the A/c ‘Sales Tax' is not allowable as amount paid for infraction of law is not allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act. 5.9.6 Therefore, under the provision of Explanation to section 37(1) of the Act, the expenditure incurred for any purposes, which is an offence or whic…

Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue, i

ITA 3885/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 36

…for purchase of capital asset after commencement of business is allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act as the interest paid was not in the nature of penalty for infraction of law. 5.9.5 However, in ACIT V. Bhanvi Agro (P) Ltd. (2012) 32 CCH 288 Jodhpur Trib: (2012) 51 SOT 182 (Jodh) (URO), it has been held that compounding fee under Sales Tax Act, debited to the A/c ‘Sales Tax' is not allowable as amount paid for infraction of law is not allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act. 5.9.6 Therefore, under the provision of Explanation to section 37(1) of the Act, the expenditure incurred for any purposes, which is an offence or whic…

5 However, in ACIT v. Bhanvi Agro (P) Ltd. (51 SOT 182) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax