How many judgments cite Bharat Commerce Industries Ltd. v. CIT?

130 judgments on BharatTax cite Bharat Commerce Industries Ltd. v. CIT (230 ITR 733), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Bharat Commerce Industries Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 37(1), Section 143(3), Section 201(1A), Section 36(1)(viii), Section 69C, Section 90(3).

Bharat Commerce Industries Ltd. v. CIT

230 ITR 733Supreme Court of India1998#790 most cited

What is Bharat Commerce Industries Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The Supreme Court holds that interest paid under Section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, for failure to deduct tax at source, is not an allowable business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act.

130

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Bharat Commerce Industries Ltd. v. CIT · 230 ITR 733 SC · Section 37(1) · Section 201(1A) · deductibility of interest · interest on TDS default · not allowable business expenditure · interest on statutory dues · disallowance of interest · interest for failure to deduct tax

Sections most often in play

Section 37(1)Section 143(3)Section 201(1A)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 69C Section 90(3)Section 37 Section 132

Issues it is cited on

section 215 section 2(43)section 40(a)(ii)interest under section 201(1a)section 221 intra group services section 201(1a)section 2(28a)explanation to section 37 section 21 statutory dues far analysis

Judgments citing Bharat Commerce Industries 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

…] 239 ITR 435 (Madras). While answering the issue in negative and in favour of the Revenue, the Hon’ble Madras High Court, after considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in [1998] 230 ITR 733 (SC), observed as follows: - “14. As already noticed, the payment of interest which takes colour from the nature of the levy with reference to which such interest is paid and the tax required to be paid but not paid in time, which rendered (sic) the assessee liable for payment of interest, was in the nature of a direct tax and in settlement of th…

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

…n 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 relied upon following decisions: 1. Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. vs. CIT [ 1998] 230 ITR 733 (SC) 2. Aruna Mills Ltd. vs. CIT [1957] 31 ITR153 (Bombay). 35. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. It is observed, while considering identical nature of dispute in case of DIT vs. Bank M/s Grasim Industries Ltd. of America NT and SA (Supra), the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held as under: “3. Eve…

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

…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 counsel relied upon following decisions:\n1. Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. vs. CIT [ 1998] 230 ITR 733 (SC)\n2. Aruna Mills Ltd. vs. CIT [1957] 31 ITR153 (Bombay).\n35. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. It\nis observed, while considering identical nature of dispute in case of DIT vs. Bank\nof America NT and SA (Supra), the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held as\nunder:\n“3. Even with regard to the que…

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed, and the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4069/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry – Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta - CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 260ASection 43BSection 45Section 801ASection 801A(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.2897/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Grasim Industries Limited vs Deputy CIT, Central Circle- 1(4), (Corporate Finance Division) Mumbai. A-2, Aditya Birla Centre Room No. 902, Old CGO Building, S.K. Ahire Marge, Worli, Mumbai, 400020 Mumbai-400 030 PAN: AAACG4464B APPELLANT RESPONDENT I.T.A No.4069/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Deputy CIT, Central Circle- vs Grasim Industries Limited 1(4), Mumbai (Corporate Finance Division) Room No…

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)

…TR 435) (Mad) also held that interest under section 201(1A) of the Act is not deductible. Both the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and Hon'ble Madras High Court have placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Commerce Industries (230 ITR 733 (SC), while coming to the conclusion that interest under section 201(1A) of the act is not deductible expenditure. In the case of Martin & Harris (P) Ltd. (73 Taxman 555), Hon'ble Kolkata High Court also held the same is not deductible. 6.2 Similarly, ITAT Delhi in the following cases held that interest paid under section 201(1A) of the Act is n…

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)

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)

CAREER COACHING (ALLD) PRIVATE LIMITED ,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT ACIT, RANGE - 2, ALLAHABAD, 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)

…ficer that these expenses are for business expediency 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 concede…

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

…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 relied upon following decisions: 1. Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. vs. CIT [ 1998] 230 ITR 733 (SC) 2. Aruna Mills Ltd. vs. CIT [1957] 31 ITR153 (Bombay). 35. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. It is observed, while considering identical nature of dispute in case of DIT vs. Bank of America NT and SA (Supra), the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held as under:…

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 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 relied upon following decisions: 1. Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. vs. CIT [ 1998] 230 ITR 733 (SC) 2. Aruna Mills Ltd. vs. CIT [1957] 31 ITR153 (Bombay). 35. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. It is observed, while considering identical nature of dispute in case of DIT vs. Bank of America NT and SA (Supra), the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held as under: “3. Even with regard to the question…

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

…] 239 ITR 435 (Madras). While answering the issue in negative and in favour of the Revenue, the Hon’ble Madras High Court, after considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. v/s CIT, reported in [1998] 230 ITR 733 (SC), observed as follows: - “14. As already noticed, the payment of interest which takes colour from the nature of the levy with reference to which such interest is paid and the tax required to be paid but not paid in time, which rendered (sic) the assessee liable for payment of interest, was in the nature of a direct tax and in settlement of t…

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

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 250

…9 ITR 435\n(Madras). While answering the issue in negative and in favour of the Revenue,\nthe Hon'ble Madras High Court, after considering the decision of the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. v/s CIT,\nreported in [1998] 230 ITR 733 (SC), observed as follows: -\n\"14. As already noticed, the payment of interest which takes colour from the\nnature of the levy with reference to which such interest is paid and the tax\nrequired to be paid but not paid in time, which rendered (sic) the assessee\nliable for payment of interest, was in the nature of a direct tax and in\nsettlement…

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

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 250

…9 ITR 435\n(Madras). While answering the issue in negative and in favour of the Revenue,\nthe Hon'ble Madras High Court, after considering the decision of the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. v/s CIT,\nreported in [1998] 230 ITR 733 (SC), observed as follows: -\n“14. As already noticed, the payment of interest which takes colour from the\nnature of the levy with reference to which such interest is paid and the tax\nrequired to be paid but not paid in time, which rendered (sic) the assessee\nliable for payment of interest, was in the nature of a direct tax and in\nsettlement…

BAJAJ HINDUSTHAN SUGAR LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 814/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafiqui (Sr. AR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 7Q

…been observed by him that the interest on delayed payment of statutory dues is allowable or not is decided on the nature of the principal. Reliance was placed on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (198) 230 ITR 733 (SC), wherein it was held that interest on late payment of Income Tax was not allowable. It held that the interest levied u/s. 139 and section 215 of the Income-tax Act was not deductible as a business expenditure u/s. 37(1) of the Act. The court held that the income tax was a tax on profit of the business and was therefore not allowable as a ded…

VAZHRAA NIRMAAN PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. I.T.O. CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 977/HYD/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR

Section 37(1)

…the Ld. DR relied on the order of Ld. CIT(A) and argued that the disallowance of interest should be upheld. In support of their submission, the Ld. DR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Commerce & Industries Limited Vs. CIT 230 ITR 733 (SC) and decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chennai Properties & Investment Limited 239 ITR 435 (Mad). 5. We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made by either side. As far as the addition of Rs.66,710/-, on account of interest on delay payment of TDS is conce…

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

…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 counsel relied upon following decisions:\n1. Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. vs. CIT [ 1998] 230 ITR 733 (SC)\n2.\n35.\nAruna Mills Ltd. vs. CIT [1957] 31 ITR153 (Bombay).\nWe have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. It is\nobserved, while considering identical nature of dispute in case of DIT vs. Bank of\nAmerica NT and SA (Supra), the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held as under:\n\"3.\nEven with regard to the…

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

…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 counsel relied upon following decisions:\n1.\nBharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. vs. CIT [ 1998] 230 ITR 733 (SC)\n2.\nAruna Mills Ltd. vs. CIT [1957] 31 ITR153 (Bombay).\n35.\nWe have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. It is\nobserved, while considering identical nature of dispute in case of DIT vs. Bank of\nAmerica NT and SA (Supra), the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held as under:\n\"3.\nEven with regard to the…

ZOHO CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

ITA 2957/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40Section 90

…of his conclusions the Ld. AO placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Ahmadabad Bench in the case of Elite Core Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The Ld. AO also drew strength from the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Commercial India Ltd.(230 ITR 733) which postulates that when the income tax itself is not a permissible deduction u/s 40(a)(ii), the interest payable by an assessee for default of the said liability would also not be eligible for reduction. The Ld. First Appellate Authority sustained the decision by relying upon the decision in the case of Elite Core Technologies Pvt. Ltd supra.…

EASTERN CARGO CARRIERS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, INDIA vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

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

ITA 4610/MUM/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/S Eastern Cargo Carriers (India) The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Pvt. Ltd., Department, Vs. Unit No. 26, Adarsh Ind. Estates, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Sahar Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400099. Pan No. Aaace 1520 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj Sheth a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 40A(2)(a)

…s own business. State and cannot be utilised by the assessee for its own business. The Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Commerce and The Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Commerce and The Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Commerce and Industries [1998] 230 ITR 733, re Industries [1998] 230 ITR 733, rejected the argument advanced jected the argument advanced by the assessee that retention of money payable to the State as by the assessee that retention of money payable to the State as by the assessee that retention of money payable to the State as tax or income- tax would augment the capital of the assessee…

M/S. ALTRADE MINERALS PVT. LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 65/CTK/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Altrade Minerals Pvt /S. Altrade Minerals Pvt Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Ltd., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Income Tax, Central Circle, Income Tax, Central Circle, C.A., C.A., Budhram Budhram Oram Oram Sambalpur Market, Market, Kachery Kachery Road, Road, Rourkela. Pan/Gir No. No.Aafca 7136 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/20 024

For Appellant: Shri M.R.Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…the year under consideration. 9. That based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of interest on TDS of Rs.66,103/- by applying Supreme Court decision in the case of 'Bharat Commerce Industries Ltd Vs. CIT [230 ITR 733] without appreciating the fact that in this decision interest on account of delay in deposit of advance tax was considered and disregarding the fact that interest on delayed deposit of TDS not penal and compensatory in nature thus assessee prays for deletion of Rs. 66,103/- in full. 10. That the grounds of appeal are independent to each other and…

Showing 1–20 of 130 · Page 1 of 7