Arthur Anderson & Co. v. ACIT

324 ITR 240High Court2010#6175 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 80IA Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37(1)Section 80JJAA Section 2(11)Section 24 Section 32 Section 32(1)(iii)

Issues it is cited on

section 41(2)section 43(6)(c)section 36(1)(v)section 2(11)section 40(a)(ii)approved gratuity fund section 43(6)interest on refund slump sale commercial rights section 36(1)(iv)written down value

Judgments citing Arthur Anderson & Co. v. ACIT

JCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1561/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar / Ms SukanyaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR

Section 153CSection 250Section 43BSection 80I

…d upon the following decisions: 1. Director of Income Tax vs. Bank of America NT and SA in ITA No. 177 of 2012 (Bom) judgment dated 03.07.2014. 2. ACIT, Mumbai vs. M/s. Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai in ITA No. 4630/Mum/2016. 3. Arthur Anderson & Co. vs. ACIT [2010] 324 ITR 240 (Bombay). 4. Lupin Ltd. vs. ACIT [2018] 94 taxmann.com 282. 34.1 Whereas, learned DR submitted, netting off of interest received against the interest paid essentially results in allowing deduction of interest paid by the assessee as business expenditure u/s. 37(1) of the Act, which is not permissible. In support of such contention learned counsel…

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1056/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Section 153CSection 250Section 43BSection 80I

…on\nthe following decisions:\n1. Director of Income Tax vs. Bank of America NT and SA in ITA No. 177 of 2012\n(Bom) judgment dated 03.07.2014.\n2. ACIT, Mumbai vs. M/s. Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai in ITA No. 4630/Mum/2016.\n3. Arthur Anderson & Co. vs. ACIT [2010] 324 ITR 240 (Bombay).\n4. Lupin Ltd. vs. ACIT [2018] 94 taxmann.com 282.\n34.1 Whereas, learned DR submitted, netting off of interest received against the\ninterest paid essentially results in allowing deduction of interest paid by the\nassessee as business expenditure u/s.37(1) of the Act, which is not permissible. In\nsupport of such contention learned cou…

JCIT (OSD)CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTIRES LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3334/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: (Appellant)

Section 37(1)Section 40Section 80I

…ed upon the following decisions: 1. Director of Income Tax vs. Bank of America NT and SA in ITA No. 177 of 2012 (Bom) judgment dated 03.07.2014. 2. ACIT, Mumbai vs. M/s. Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai in ITA No. 4630/Mum/2016. 3. Arthur Anderson & Co. vs. ACIT [2010] 324 ITR 240 (Bombay). 4. Lupin Ltd. vs. ACIT [2018] 94 taxmann.com 282. 34.1 Whereas, learned DR submitted, netting off of interest received against the interest paid essentially results in allowing deduction of interest paid by the assessee as business expenditure u/s.37(1) of the Act, which is not permissible. In support of such contention learned counsel…

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2224/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. Dcit, (Corporate Finance Division) Central Circle 1(4), A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, Vs. Room No. 902, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Old Cgo Building, Mumbai - 400030 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg 4464B Dcit, M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. Central Circle 1(4), (Corporate Finance Division) Room No. 902, A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, Old Cgo Building, Vs. S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai - 400030 Appellant By : Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate, Shri Madhur Agarwal & Respondent By : Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit(Dr) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT(DR)

Section 37(1)Section 40Section 80I

…ed upon the following decisions: 1. Director of Income Tax vs. Bank of America NT and SA in ITA No. 177 of 2012 (Bom) judgment dated 03.07.2014. 2. ACIT, Mumbai vs. M/s. Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai in ITA No. 4630/Mum/2016. 3. Arthur Anderson & Co. vs. ACIT [2010] 324 ITR 240 (Bombay). 4. Lupin Ltd. vs. ACIT [2018] 94 taxmann.com 282. 34.1 Whereas, learned DR submitted, netting off of interest received against the interest paid essentially results in allowing deduction of interest paid by the assessee as business expenditure u/s. 37(1) of the Act, which is not permissible. In support of such contention learned counsel…

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 6307/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

…the following decisions:\n1.\nDirector of Income Tax vs. Bank of America NT and SA in ITA No. 177 of\n2012 (Bom) judgment dated 03.07.2014.\n2.\nACIT, Mumbai vs. M/s. Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai in ITA No. 4630/Mum/2016.\n3.\nArthur Anderson & Co. vs. ACIT [2010] 324 ITR 240 (Bombay).\n4.\nLupin Ltd. vs. ACIT [2018] 94 taxmann.com 282.\n34.1 Whereas, learned DR submitted, netting off of interest received against the\ninterest paid essentially results in allowing deduction of interest paid by the assessee as\nbusiness expenditure u/s.37(1) of the Act, which is not permissible. In support of such\ncontention learned co…

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 5925/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

EXPAT ENGINEERING INDIA LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 34/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Parithivel, D.R

Section 143Section 250

…ITA No.34/Bang/2023 M/s. Expat Engineering India Limited, Bengaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Expat Engineering India Ltd. Regd. Office Carlton Towers, A Wing, 3rd Floor, Unit No.301-3-314 ACIT No.1 Old Airport Road Vs. Circle-2(1)(2) Bangalore 560 008 Bangalore PAN NO : AABCE9003D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Ravi Shankar, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Parithivel, D.R. Date of Hearing : 31.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 09.11.2023 O R D E R PER CHAN…

EXPAT ENGINEERING INDIA LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1139/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ravishankar S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 250Section 37

…sessee’s case the issue under consideration is the allowability of interest u/s.201(1A) as deduction u/s.37(1) of the Act and therefore the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court can be applied. 21. The next case referred is Arthur Anderson & Co vs ACIT (2010) 324 ITR 240 (Bombay). The issue considered in that case was with regard validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. The 9 ITA No.1139/Bang/2022. M/s.Expat Engineering India Limited. Court found that material on the record before the Court showed that in the statement of total income the assessee had disclosed an interest income of…

DELHIVERY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR, CIT-3, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1036/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1036/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Delhivery Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pr. Cit-3, Plot No. 5, Sector-44, Central Revenue Building, Gurugram, Haryana-122002 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aapcs9575E Assessee By : Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Sh. M. Baranwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.03.2023

For Appellant: Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 201Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

…re compensatory in nature and in the absence of specific provision no such disallowance is warranted. The above view expressed in the following decisions:  Harshad Shantilal Mehta vs. Custodian [1998] 231 ITR 871 (SC)  Arthur Anderson & Co. vs. ACIT [2010] 324 ITR 240  Mukand Ltd. [2019] 101 taxmann.com 214 (Mumbai - Trib.)  Rungta Mines Ltd. in I.TA No. 1531/Kol./2017)  Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. (1980) 123 ITR 429 13 Delhivery Pvt. Ltd. 25. In the course of revisionary proceedings, the Ld. PCIT on verification of record and Audit party objections observed that such sum related to payment of interest on lat…

ITO 8(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. SENTIA DEVELOPERS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2661/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, Adv./Om KandalkarFor Respondent: Shri Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 28

…been held in sheet also amounts to disclosure of material facts. This has been held in numerous decisions such as: uch as: CIT vs. Corporation Ltd (2002) 254 ITR 791 (SC) • CIT vs. Corporation Ltd (2002) 254 ITR 791 (SC) Arthur Anderson & Co, vs. ACIT (2010) 324 ITR 240 (Bom) erson & Co, vs. ACIT (2010) 324 ITR 240 (Bom) 5.1.11 As stated, the appellant had already made a disclosure of all material stated, the appellant had already made a disclosure of all material stated, the appellant had already made a disclosure of all material facts and related documents at the time of original assessment. Reopening after f…

EXPAT ENGINEERING INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 503/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 43B

…essee’s case the issue under consideration is the allowability of interest u/s.201(1A) as deduction u/s.37(1) of the Act and therefore the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court can be applied. The next case referred is Arthur Anderson & Co vs ACIT (2010) 21. 324 ITR 240 (Bombay). The issue considered in that case was with regard validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. The Court found that material on the record before the Court showed that in the statement of total income the assessee had disclosed an interest income of Rs.50.14 lacs as income from other sources. In the note append…

M/S RESOIVE & FIRE INDIA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14 (3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 841/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 201Section 206C(7)Section 215Section 220(2)

…ch are basically relating to remittance of advance payment of tax. Therefore, the case relied by the Ld.CIT(A) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Further, he submitted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Arthur Anderson & Co. vs ACIT (2010) 324 ITR 240 (Bom), relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harshad Shantilal Mehta vs Custodian (1998) 231 ITR 871 (SC) held that interest u/s 220(2) is not disallowable. The Ld.AR has also relied upon the following decisions:- 1. DCIT VS Narayani Ispat Pvt Ltd – ITA No.2127/Kol/2014 2. Sai Food Products Pvt Ltd vs DCIT – ITA o.1887/Kol/201…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, DIBRUGARH vs. T & T PROJECTS LTD., GUWAHATI

In the result and for the reasons discussed above, we find no merit in this appeal

ITA 208/GTY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati02 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.208/Gau/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Bhardwaj, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Goenka, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…hinery exceeded Rs. 1 crore. Similar views that disclosure in Balance Sheet amounts to disclosure for purpose of section 147 of the Act, had been held in the following cases: i) Corporation Bank Ltd (2002) 254 ITR 791 (SC) ii) Arthus Anerson& Co v AClT (2010) 324 ITR 240 (Bom) 9. We note that when there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts and when income is reassessed based on same sets of facts that were available earlier, the assessee cannot be said to have failed in its duty of disclosing material facts. In view of the facts of the case and ample number of decision on the subj…

AURO GOLD JEWELLERY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2541/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tralshawalo, ARFor Respondent: Shri Maurya Pratay, DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…pletion of its assessment for the relevant assessment year, there cannot be any reopening of the assessment. For this the learned counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Arthur Anderson & Co. vs. ACIT [2010] 324 ITR 240 (Bombay) and stated that disclosure in balance sheet is also amounts to disclosure. We noted that the assessee has made disclosure in the notes 2 accounts from part of the balance sheet and profit and loss account and therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee had not fully and truly disclosed all material facts necessary for the assessment.…

KISHORE KUMAR KATARUKA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 2787/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Amar Gahlot & ChandniFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen (DR)

…Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07 are not justifiable and are held to be wrong against law and facts and are hereby ordered to be set aside by relying upon the law settled in Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R. B. Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom), Arthur Anderson Vs. ACIT (2010) 324 ITR 240 (Bom), Bhavesh Developers Vs. AO 329 ITR 249 (Bom), Lupin Limited Vs. ACIT (2014) 224 Taxman 225 (Bom) etc. In view of the said circumstances, we allowed the claim of the assessee for the A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 in ITA. No. 2787/M/2017 and 2788/M/2017 respectively and order to treat the substantive assessment order in the appeal of the assessee in…

HITECH PLAST LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4358/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. B. R. Baskaran, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4358/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit (Osd) Rg 8(1) Hitech Plast Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Earlier Known As Clear Road, Mumbai-20 Mipak Packaging Solutions Ltd. बिधम/ Unit No. 201, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Welspun House, Kamala City, Senapati Bpat Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai- 400013 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaacc4489N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Dalpat Shah प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Ms. Pooja Swaroop सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 25.01.18 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30.01.18 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeal) -16, Mumbai Dated 31.03.16 For Ay 2011-12 On The Grounds Mentioned Herein Below:-

For Appellant: Shri Dalpat ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 37

…n nature and has relied upon the following judgments:- 1. CIT V/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 183 Taxman 186 (Kar) 2. CIT V/s Messee Dusseldorf India (P) Ltd. 129 TTJ 81 (Del)(URO 3. Lachmandas Mathuradas 254 ITR 799 (SC) 4. Arthur Anderson & Co. V/s ACIT 324 ITR 240 (Born) 5. Harshad Shantilal Mehta V/s Custodian 231 ITR 871 (SC) 6. Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. 230 ITR 733 (SC) 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR defended the findings of revenue authorities and relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble 5 I.T.A. No. 4358/Mum/2016 Hitech Plast Ltd Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. Vrs.…

DCIT 9(2), MUMBAI vs. NESCO LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5611/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…vant facts. Since, initiation of proceeding is based on change of opinion or by reviewing the original order, such notice cannot be held validly issued vide decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Arthur Anderson & Company vs. ACIT (2010) 324 ITR 240, 246 (Bom). Also reference may be had of D.T. & T.D.C. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2010) 324 ITR 234, 239 (Delhi). Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has disapproved such action of the Assessing Officer in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) Further, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has also not sustained such reopening of…

BASANTI JEEVANLAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 14(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 909/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 Smt. Basanti Jeevanlal Jain, The Income Tax Officer 287, Dharamraj Gully, Ward-14(3)(2), बनाम/ M.J. Market, Earnest House, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Agdpj5258A

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54

…he assessment was completed u/s 143(3) and 143 r.w.s 147 of the Act after due application of mind. The ratio laid down in CIT vs Kelvinator India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC), CIT vs Jet Speed Audio Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 762 (Bom.), Arthur Anderson & Co. vs ACIT (324 ITR 240)(Bom.), Titanor components Ltd. vs ACIT (243 CTR 520)(Bom.) supports our view. The material facts were duly made available by the assessee to the Assessing Officer. Even assuming that the ld. Assessing Officer failed to apply his mind, assessment cannot be reopened u/s 147 of the Act merely on the basis of change of opinion. The ratio laid down i…

ANTWERP DIAMONDS BANK NV,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) RG 1(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 8480/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Us Is A Foreign Banking Company Incorporated In Belgium & Is Tax Resident Of Belgium. It Is Carrying On Banking Business In India On The Strength Of Licence Granted By The Reserve Bank Of India. For The Year Under Consideration, It Filed A Return Of Income On 14/11/2007 Disclosing A Total Income Of Rs.41,78,76,187/-, Which Was Subject To Scrutiny Assessment, Wherein The Total Income Has Been Assessed At Rs.42,40,38,700/-. The Assessment Under Section 143(3) R.W. 144C(13) Of The Act Dated 11/10/2011 Was Finalized By The Assessing Officer In Terms Of The Directions Issued By Drp-1, Mumbai Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act Dated 23/9/2011. The Appellant Had Approached The Drp Against The Variation To The Returned Income Proposed By The Assessing Officer In His Draft Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144C(1) Of The Act Dated 23/12/2010. In This Background, We May Now Take Up The Four Issues Raised By The Assessee In Seriatim.

For Appellant: S/Shri K.K.Ved & N.A.PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Vandana Sagar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 40

…ayment of income tax vis-à-vis payment of interest under sections 234B & 234C of the Act. In this context, the Ld. Representative for the assessee referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Arthur Anderson & Company vs. Asstt.CIT,324 ITR 240(Bom) and pointed out that the expression ‘tax’ defined under section 2(43) of the Act does not include penalty or interest and, therefore, the prohibition contained under section 40(a)(ii) of the Act covers only income tax paid or payable, and not the interest paid on income-tax. 8. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative appearing fo…