Aruna Mills Ltd. v. CIT

31 ITR 153High Court1957#3609 most cited

What is Aruna Mills Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Interest payable under section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act is not an allowable business expenditure under section 37(1). This is a well-settled position affirmed by multiple High Courts.

33

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Aruna Mills Ltd. v. CIT · section 201(1A) · section 37(1) · interest not deductible · business expenditure · Bombay High Court · non-deductible interest

Sections most often in play

Section 37(1)Section 143(3)Section 201(1A)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 90(3)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 14A

Issues it is cited on

section 41(2)section 215section 90(3)section 43(6)(c)section 256(1)section 36(1)(v)section 2(11)section 40(a)(ii)section 10(2)(xv)section 256approved gratuity fundsection 43(6)

Judgments citing Aruna Mills Ltd. v. CIT

Sheth Realtors, Mumbai vs. ACIT-CC-7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5947/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Arun Khodpiashri Sandeep Singh Karhailsheth Realtors Vasant Oasis, Site Office, Upper Basement, Cts No.345A 1 To 3, 345A 5 To 6, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri (East), ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400059 Pan: Aavfa3975F

For Appellant: Dr. K ShivramFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250

…claim as not allowable under section 37 and it is against the above basic undisputed background that the question has been referred. The point stands concluded against the assessee by the consistent view of this court right from Aruna Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1957] 31 ITR 153 to CIT v. Ghatkopar Estate and Finance Corporation ( P) Ltd. [1989] 177 ITR 222 (Bom). The Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Commerce Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1985] 153 ITR 275 and the Kerala High Court in the case of Federal Bank Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 180 ITR 37, have also taken the same view. Very fairly, Shri Bhide, learned counsel for the ass…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG, PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 1056/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s Grasim Industries Ltd., DCIT, CC-1(4), Corporate Finance Division, Room No. 902, Old CGO Building, 9th Floor, M.K. Road, A2, Aditya Birla Centre, Vs. S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400030. PAN: AAACG4464B Assessee) : Revenue) I.T.A. No. 1561/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) JCIT, CC-1(4), M/s Grasim Industries Ltd., A-Wing, 2nd Floor, Room No. 902, Old CGO Building, 9th Floor, M.K. Road, Aditya Birla Centre, Vs. Mumb…

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

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

Section 153CSection 250Section 43BSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG, PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 1056/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s Grasim Industries Ltd., Corporate Finance Division, A2, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400030. PAN: AAACG4464B Vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Room No. 902, Old CGO Building, 9th Floor, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Assessee) : Revenue) I.T.A. No. 1561/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) JCIT, CC-1(4), Room No. 902, Old CGO Building, 9th Floor, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Vs. M/s Grasim Industries Ltd., A-Wing, 2nd Floor, Aditya Birla…

Bank of Baroda, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the appellant are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2392/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri C. Naresh
Section 143(3)Section 90(3)

…der section 37(1) of the Act, where it was held that the said claim is against the basic undisputed background. It was also mentioned at para 3 that the point stands concluded against appellant by the consistent view of this Court right from Aruna Mills Ltd. (31 ITR 153)(Bom) to CIT Vs. Ghatkopar Estate & Finance Corporation (177 ITR 222) (Bom), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Commerce Industries Ltd. Vs. Ld. CIT(A) (180 ITR 37), it was mentioned. It is also observed that Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd. (239 ITR 435) (Mad) also held that interest un…

Bank of Baroda, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the appellant are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1243/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri C. Naresh
Section 143(3)Section 90(3)

…der section 37(1) of the Act, where it was held that the said claim is against the basic undisputed background. It was also mentioned at para 3 that the point stands concluded against appellant by the consistent view of this Court right from Aruna Mills Ltd. (31 ITR 153)(Bom) to CIT Vs. Ghatkopar Estate & Finance Corporation (177 ITR 222) (Bom), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Commerce Industries Ltd. Vs. Ld. CIT(A) (180 ITR 37), it was mentioned. It is also observed that Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd. (239 ITR 435) (Mad) also held that interest un…

Bank of Baroda, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the appellant are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1241/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri C. Naresh
Section 143(3)Section 90(3)

…der section 37(1) of the Act, where it was held that the said claim is against the basic undisputed background. It was also mentioned at para 3 that the point stands concluded against appellant by the consistent view of this Court right from Aruna Mills Ltd. (31 ITR 153)(Bom) to CIT Vs. Ghatkopar Estate & Finance Corporation (177 ITR 222) (Bom), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Commerce Industries Ltd. Vs. Ld. CIT(A) (180 ITR 37), it was mentioned. It is also observed that Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd. (239 ITR 435) (Mad) also held that interest un…

Career Coaching (Alld) Private Limited, Allahabad vs. DCIT ACIT, Range - 2, Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 62/ALLD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad25 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

Section 143(3)

…diency and may be allowed. Learned D.R., on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below and placed heavy reliance on the following case laws: 1. Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. vs. CIT [1998] 230 ITR 733 2. Aruna Mills Ltd. vs. CIT [1957] 31 ITR 153 3. Orient General Industries Ltd. vs. CIT [1994] 209 ITR 490 (Cal) 4. Assam Forest Products (P.) Ltd. vs CIT [1989] 180 ITR 478 5. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. In the written submissions, filed before the learned CIT(A), the assessee has conceded that out of total disallowance of Rs.33,77,77…

JCIT (OSD)Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industires Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly

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

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

Section 37(1)Section 40Section 8O

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, AM ITA No. 2224/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) 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 ITA No. 3334/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) 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,…

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

…` IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP AND 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 Ag…

Indian Coal Agency, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-35, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 868/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…arties are identifiable and are income tax Page 15 of 28 I.T.A. Nos.: 867, 868 & 1258/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Indian Coal Agency. It is submitted that profits should be understood in the commercial sense. In Aruna Mill Ltd. vs CIT (1957) 31 ITR 153 (Bom), it was held that “What the Income tax Act purports to tax is business profits, and business profits are the true profits of a business ascertained according to commercial principles. There may be an expenditure or there may be loss which may not be admissible under any of the specific provisions of the statute and yet such an expenditure or…

Indian Coal Agency, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Circle - 12, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 867/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…arties are identifiable and are income tax Page 15 of 28 I.T.A. Nos.: 867, 868 & 1258/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Indian Coal Agency. It is submitted that profits should be understood in the commercial sense. In Aruna Mill Ltd. vs CIT (1957) 31 ITR 153 (Bom), it was held that “What the Income tax Act purports to tax is business profits, and business profits are the true profits of a business ascertained according to commercial principles. There may be an expenditure or there may be loss which may not be admissible under any of the specific provisions of the statute and yet such an expenditure or…

DCIT, Circle-35, Kolkata vs. M/S. Indian Coal Agency, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1258/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…arties are identifiable and are income tax Page 15 of 28 I.T.A. Nos.: 867, 868 & 1258/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Indian Coal Agency. It is submitted that profits should be understood in the commercial sense. In Aruna Mill Ltd. vs CIT (1957) 31 ITR 153 (Bom), it was held that “What the Income tax Act purports to tax is business profits, and business profits are the true profits of a business ascertained according to commercial principles. There may be an expenditure or there may be loss which may not be admissible under any of the specific provisions of the statute and yet such an expenditure or…

DCIT-C-6(2), Mumbai vs. Samira Habitats India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objection by the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 5714/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.5714/Mum/2024 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 250

…claim as not allowable under section 37 and it is against the above basic undisputed background that the question has been referred. The point stands concluded against the assessee by the consistent view of this court right from Aruna Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1957] 31 ITR 153 to CIT v. Ghatkopar Estate and Finance Corporation ( P) Ltd. [1989] 177 ITR 222 (Bom). The Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Commerce Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1985] 153 ITR 275 and the Kerala High Court in the case of Federal Bank Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 180 ITR 37, have also taken the same view. Very fairly, Shri Bhide, learned counsel for the ass…

DCIT-C-6(2), Mumbai vs. Samira Habitats, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

ITA 5710/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 250

…claim as not allowable under Section 37 and it is against the above basic undisputed background that the question has been referred. The point stands concluded against the assessee by the consistent view of this court right from Aruna Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1957] 31 ITR 153 to CIT v. Ghatkopar Estate and Finance Corporation ( P) Ltd. [1989] 177 ITR 222 (Bom). The Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Commerce Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1985] 153 ITR 275 and the Kerala High Court in the case of Federal Bank Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 180 ITR 37, have also taken the same view. Very fairly, Shri Bhide, learned counsel for the ass…

DCIT-C-6(2), Mumbai vs. Samira Habitats India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

ITA 5709/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 250

…claim as not allowable under section 37 and it is against the above basic undisputed background that the question has been referred. The point stands concluded against the assessee by the consistent view of this court right from Aruna Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1957] 31 ITR 153 to CIT v. Ghatkopar Estate and Finance Corporation ( P) Ltd. [1989] 177 ITR 222 (Bom). The Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Commerce Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1985] 153 ITR 275 and the Kerala High Court in the case of Federal Bank Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 180 ITR 37, have also taken the same view. Very fairly, Shri Bhide, learned counsel for the ass…

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

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

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, AM ITA No. 5925/Mum/2010 (Assessment Years: 2007-08) Grasim Industries Ltd. (Corporate Finance Division) A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai - 400030 (Appellant) Vs. Addl. CIT, Range 6(3), 5th Floor, Room No.505, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai (Respondent) ITA No. 6307/Mum/2010 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) ACIT, Circle-6(3), Mumbai Vs. Grasim Industries Ltd. Century Bhavan, 3rd Floor, Dr. AB Road, Worli, Mumbai - 400025 Appellant by : Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate, Shri Madhur Agarwal, And Sh…

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

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, AM ITA No. 5925/Mum/2010 (Assessment Years: 2007-08) Grasim Industries Ltd. (Corporate Finance Division) A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai - 400030 (Appellant) Vs. : Addl. CIT, Range 6(3), 5th Floor, Room No.505, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai (Respondent) ITA No. 6307/Mum/2010 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) ACIT, Circle-6(3), Mumbai Vs. Appellant by Respondent by (Appellant) Grasim Industries Ltd. Century Bhavan, 3rd Floor, Dr. AB Road, Worli, Mumbai - 400025 Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate, Sh…

DCIT, Circle, Patiala vs. M/S Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala

In the result, ground no. 1 & 3 of the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and ground no

ITA 737/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saldi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)

…. To support his contention that income tax is liability of personal nature, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ghatkopar Estate & The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Limited Finance Corpn. (P) Ltd. [(1989) 177 ITR 222 (Bom.)] in which it was held that interest on income-tax liability was not allowable deduction because it was a liability of personal nature. He also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Commerce Industrial VS. CIT (1998) 230 ITR 733 (SC) to state that the payment of income-tax could never be for the purpose of preserving…

The DCIT Circle 5(1), Bhopal vs. M/S L N Malviya Infra Projects P Ltd, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 189/IND/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Jan 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit, Circle 5(1) M/S. L.N. Malviya Infra Projects Bhopal Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.29, F/F Sector, Dwarka Vs. New Delhi

Section 234ASection 3(3)Section 37(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT, Circle 5(1) M/s. L.N. Malviya Infra Projects Bhopal Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.29, F/F Sector, Dwarka Vs. New Delhi (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AACCL 1320 Assessee by Shri Kirti Kumar Daga, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 04.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement 09.01.2024 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 22.03.2023 of Commissioner o…

Jt.CIT (OSD), Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Delhivery P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.1734/Del/2023 is partly allowed and ITA

ITA 1735/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. C.N. Prasad

Section 263Section 37(1)

…siness expenditure. I find that interest u/s 201(1A)/206C(7) is not a business expenditure. In this regard, it is worthwhile to mention following judicial pronouncements. (SC)” - Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (1988 -Aruna Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1957) 31 ITR 153 (Bom) -CIT vs. Chennai Properties and Ors. (1999) 239 ITR 435 (Mad.) ) 230 ITR 733 26. In view of the facts narrated above, we find that the AO has failed to disallow above mentioned interest expenditure while passing the order u/s 143(3) and hence rendering the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The order of the Id.…