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

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Aruna Mills Ltd. v. CIT

Subsea Pro Engineering Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-16 (3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 5884/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Judcial Member & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2015-16 Subsea Pro Engineering Private Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, 509 & 510, Techniplex Ii, Opp Circle 16 (3), Techniplex Complex, Jn. Veer Vs. Room No. 449, Aaykar Bhavan, Savarkar Flyover, Maharashi Karve Road, Goregaon (West), Churchgate- 400020 Mumbai - 400062 Pan: Aapcs6354R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Viswas Mehandale (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Menon (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/08/2021

For Appellant: Shri Viswas Mehandale (AR)For Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon (DR)
Section 139Section 201Section 37Section 37(1)

…ility. Hence, in no way connected with preserving or promoting the business of the assessee. Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the interest paid would not be allowable as deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. In case of Aruna Mills Ltd. vs. CIT, 1957 31 ITR 153 relied upon by the departmental authorities, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held that interest for default to pay advance tax cannot be allowed as deduction. In case of CIT vs. Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Madras High Court while considering identical issue of deduction claimed for interest paid for delayed remi…

Vidyut Metallics P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle- 38(New Central Circle-6(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 5243/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5243/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5244/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Vidyut Metallics Pvt.Ltd. Acit-Cc 38 बनाम/ 4Th Floor, Malhotra House [New Central Circle-6(3) 19Th Floor, Air India Building Opp. Gpo, Fort Vs. Mumbai-400 001. Nariman Point, Mumbai-21. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcv-3305-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jha and Shri Dr. Prayag Jha- Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Gobgtra - Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 40

…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 as…