AO on Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Surtax

210 ITR 485High Court1994#3167 most cited

What is AO on Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Surtax authority for?

Convertible debentures (CCDs) continue to be classified as debt until they are converted into equity. During the pre-conversion period, interest paid on CCDs is treated as interest on debt, not as interest on equity.

37

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Ltd v Commissioner of Surtax · convertible debentures · debentures · debt · equity · pre-conversion period · interest on debt · interest on equity · section 36(1)(iii)

Sections most often in play

Section 194ASection 201(1A)Section 201(1)Section 201Section 194A(3)(v)Section 194A(3)(viia)(b)Section 194A(3)(i)(b)Section 139

Issues it is cited on

section 80p(i)section 194a(3)(viia)(b)section 194a(3)(viia)(a)section 194a(3)(i)(b)section 194(3)(v)section 194a(3)(i)section 194a(v)section 194(3)(viia)(b)section 5(1)(cc)section 194a(1)section 194a(3)(v)section 194a(3)

Judgments citing AO on Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Surtax

Citizen Credit Co-Operative Bank Ltd (Amboli Branch), Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS)-1(1)(4), Mumbai

ITA 6389/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 2(19)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

…ecific clauses. There are a number of judicial pronouncements wherein it has been held that a specific provision overrides a general provision. For this purpose reliance was placed by the AO on Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Surtax (1994) 210 ITR 485 (Bom) and CIT vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd (2002) 254 ITR 627(Del). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of South Indian Corporation (P) Ltd Vs. Secretary, Board of Revenue AIR 1964 SC 207 has held that the special provision should be given to the extent of its scope leaving the general provision to control cases where the special provision…

Citizencredit Co-Operative Bank Limited (Manori Branch), Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS)-Ward 1(1)(4), Mumbai

ITA 6387/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 2(19)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

…ecific clauses. There are a number of judicial pronouncements wherein it has been held that a specific provision overrides a general provision. For this purpose reliance was placed by the AO on Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Surtax (1994) 210 ITR 485 (Bom) and CIT vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd (2002) 254 ITR 627(Del). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of South Indian Corporation (P) Ltd Vs. Secretary, Board of Revenue AIR 1964 SC 207 has held that the special provision should be given to the extent of its scope leaving the general provision to control cases where the special provision…

Citizen Credit Co-Operative Bank Ltd (Sahar Branch), Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS)-1(1)(4), Mumbai

ITA 6385/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 2(19)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

…ecific clauses. There are a number of judicial pronouncements wherein it has been held that a specific provision overrides a general provision. For this purpose reliance was placed by the AO on Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Surtax (1994) 210 ITR 485 (Bom) and CIT vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd (2002) 254 ITR 627(Del). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of South Indian Corporation (P) Ltd Vs. Secretary, Board of Revenue AIR 1964 SC 207 has held that the special provision should be given to the extent of its scope leaving the general provision to control cases where the special provision…

Citizen Credit Co.Operative Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS)-1(1)(4), Mumbai

ITA 6039/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 2(19)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

…ecific clauses. There are a number of judicial pronouncements wherein it has been held that a specific provision overrides a general provision. For this purpose reliance was placed by the AO on Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Surtax (1994) 210 ITR 485 (Bom) and CIT vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd (2002) 254 ITR 627(Del). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of South Indian Corporation (P) Ltd Vs. Secretary, Board of Revenue AIR 1964 SC 207 has held that the special provision should be given to the extent of its scope leaving the general provision to control cases where the special provision…

Citizen Credit Co.Operative Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS)-1(1)(4), Mumbai

ITA 6035/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 2(19)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

…ecific clauses. There are a number of judicial pronouncements wherein it has been held that a specific provision overrides a general provision. For this purpose reliance was placed by the AO on Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Surtax (1994) 210 ITR 485 (Bom) and CIT vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd (2002) 254 ITR 627(Del). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of South Indian Corporation (P) Ltd Vs. Secretary, Board of Revenue AIR 1964 SC 207 has held that the special provision should be given to the extent of its scope leaving the general provision to control cases where the special provision…

Citizencredit Co Operative Bank Limited ( Kurla Branch), Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS)1(1)(4), Mumbai

In the results, all the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 2381/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Waglay,ARFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, (Sr. DR)
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 2(19)Section 201(1)

…ecific clauses. There are a number of judicial pronouncements wherein it has been held that a specific provision overrides a general provision. For this purpose reliance was placed by the AO on Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Surtax (1994) 210 ITR 485 (Bom) and CIT vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd (2002) 254 ITR 627(Del). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of South Indian Corporation (P) Ltd Vs. Secretary, Board of Revenue AIR 1964 SC 207 has held that the special provision should be given to the extent of its scope leaving the general provision to control cases where the special provision…

Citizencredit Co Operative Bank Limited (Wadala Branch), Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS)1(1)4, Mumbai

In the results, all the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 2380/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Waglay,ARFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, (Sr. DR)
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 2(19)Section 201(1)

…ecific clauses. There are a number of judicial pronouncements wherein it has been held that a specific provision overrides a general provision. For this purpose reliance was placed by the AO on Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Surtax (1994) 210 ITR 485 (Bom) and CIT vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd (2002) 254 ITR 627(Del). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of South Indian Corporation (P) Ltd Vs. Secretary, Board of Revenue AIR 1964 SC 207 has held that the special provision should be given to the extent of its scope leaving the general provision to control cases where the special provision…

Citizencredit Co Operative Bank Limited (Turner Road Branch), Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS)1(1)(4), Mumbai

In the results, all the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 2379/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Waglay,ARFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, (Sr. DR)
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 2(19)Section 201(1)

…ecific clauses. There are a number of judicial pronouncements wherein it has been held that a specific provision overrides a general provision. For this purpose reliance was placed by the AO on Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Surtax (1994) 210 ITR 485 (Bom) and CIT vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd (2002) 254 ITR 627(Del). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of South Indian Corporation (P) Ltd Vs. Secretary, Board of Revenue AIR 1964 SC 207 has held that the special provision should be given to the extent of its scope leaving the general provision to control cases where the special provision…

Citizencredit Co Operative Bank Limited (Malad Branch), Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS)1(1)(4), Mumbai

In the results, all the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 2378/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Waglay,ARFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, (Sr. DR)
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 2(19)Section 201(1)

…ecific clauses. There are a number of judicial pronouncements wherein it has been held that a specific provision overrides a general provision. For this purpose reliance was placed by the AO on Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Surtax (1994) 210 ITR 485 (Bom) and CIT vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd (2002) 254 ITR 627(Del). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of South Indian Corporation (P) Ltd Vs. Secretary, Board of Revenue AIR 1964 SC 207 has held that the special provision should be given to the extent of its scope leaving the general provision to control cases where the special provision…

Citizencredit Co Operative Bank Limited (Santacruz Branch), Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS) 1 (1)(4), Mumbai

In the results, all the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 2377/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Waglay,ARFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, (Sr. DR)
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 2(19)Section 201(1)

…ecific clauses. There are a number of judicial pronouncements wherein it has been held that a specific provision overrides a general provision. For this purpose reliance was placed by the AO on Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Surtax (1994) 210 ITR 485 (Bom) and CIT vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd (2002) 254 ITR 627(Del). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of South Indian Corporation (P) Ltd Vs. Secretary, Board of Revenue AIR 1964 SC 207 has held that the special provision should be given to the extent of its scope leaving the general provision to control cases where the special provision…

Citizencredit Co Operative Bank Limited ( Borivili Branch), Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS)1(1)(4), Mumbai

In the results, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2376/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Waglay,ARFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, (Sr. DR)
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 2(19)Section 201(1)

…ecific clauses. There are a number of judicial pronouncements wherein it has been held that a specific provision overrides a general provision. For this purpose reliance was placed by the AO on Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Surtax (1994) 210 ITR 485 (Bom) and CIT vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd (2002) 254 ITR 627(Del). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of South Indian Corporation (P) Ltd Vs. Secretary, Board of Revenue AIR 1964 SC 207 has held that the special provision should be given to the extent of its scope leaving the general provision to control cases where the special provision…

Citizencredit Co Operative Bank Limited (Vakola Branch), Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS)1(1)4, Mumbai

In the results, all the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 2375/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Waglay,ARFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, (Sr. DR)
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 2(19)Section 201(1)

…ecific clauses. There are a number of judicial pronouncements wherein it has been held that a specific provision overrides a general provision. For this purpose reliance was placed by the AO on Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Surtax (1994) 210 ITR 485 (Bom) and CIT vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd (2002) 254 ITR 627(Del). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of South Indian Corporation (P) Ltd Vs. Secretary, Board of Revenue AIR 1964 SC 207 has held that the special provision should be given to the extent of its scope leaving the general provision to control cases where the special provision…

Citizencredit Co Operative Bank Limited ( Mulund Branch), Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS)-1(1)(4), Mumbai

In the results, all the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 2374/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Waglay,ARFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, (Sr. DR)
Section 194ASection 194A(1)Section 194A(3)(i)Section 194A(3)(v)Section 2(19)Section 201(1)

…ecific clauses. There are a number of judicial pronouncements wherein it has been held that a specific provision overrides a general provision. For this purpose reliance was placed by the AO on Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Surtax (1994) 210 ITR 485 (Bom) and CIT vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd (2002) 254 ITR 627(Del). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of South Indian Corporation (P) Ltd Vs. Secretary, Board of Revenue AIR 1964 SC 207 has held that the special provision should be given to the extent of its scope leaving the general provision to control cases where the special provision…

Ucweb Mobile Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Assessment Unit, Inocome Tax Department, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3945/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 253(1)(d)Section 43(3)

…le debentures for pre-conversion period con be said to be interest on equity and interest on debentures allowable u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act." 26. Further, the Bombay High Court in the case of Kirloskar Pneumatic Co.Limited vs Commissioner of Surtax [1994] 210 ITR 485 (Bombay) has held that CCDs continues to be debt till is repaid or discharged. The debt would acquire the character of the equity and become part of the paid up capital of the company only in the eventuality of the conversion of debentures into equity. Thus, we could safely conclude that CCDs issued by the assessee partake the character of debt u…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bangalore Turf Club Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2248/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha
Section 194BSection 201fSection 37Section 37(1)Section 40

…general provision, provided both the provisions operate in the same field. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of CIT v. Shahzada Nand & Sons[1966] 60 ITR 392 (SC) and Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Surtax [1994] 74 Taxman 615/210 ITR 485 (Bom.) and Forbes Forbes Compbell & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 74 Taxman 268/206 ITR 495 (Bom.). Thus, as per him, the Assessing Officer erred in applying Section 194B of the Act, which is a general provision applicable to 'card game or other game of any sort', which would not cover stake money on horse races; and, for the latter income, Section 194B…

Bangalore Turf Club Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1849/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha
Section 194BSection 201fSection 37Section 37(1)Section 40

…general provision, provided both the provisions operate in the same field. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of CIT v. Shahzada Nand & Sons[1966] 60 ITR 392 (SC) and Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Surtax [1994] 74 Taxman 615/210 ITR 485 (Bom.) and Forbes Forbes Compbell & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 74 Taxman 268/206 ITR 495 (Bom.). Thus, as per him, the Assessing Officer erred in applying Section 194B of the Act, which is a general provision applicable to 'card game or other game of any sort', which would not cover stake money on horse races; and, for the latter income, Section 194B…

Bangalore Truf Club Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year 2012-

ITA 1848/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 194BSection 201fSection 234BSection 234CSection 40

…general provision, provided both the provisions operate in the same field. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of CIT v. Shahzada Nand & Sons[1966] 60 ITR 392 (SC) and Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Surtax [1994] 74 Taxman 615/210 ITR 485 (Bom.) and Forbes Forbes Compbell & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 74 Taxman 268/206 ITR 495 (Bom.). Thus, as per him, the Assessing Officer erred in applying Section 194B of the Act, which is a general provision applicable to 'card game or other game of any sort', which would not cover stake money on horse races; and, for the latter income, Section 194B…