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 366,470 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

Read the full judgment

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

Kiri Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 422/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 201Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 37(1)

…the assessee. Thus any delay in the payment of TDS by the assessee cannot be linked to the income tax of the assessee and consequently the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Commerce Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1998) reported in 230 ITR 733 cannot be applied to the case on hand.' 6. Being consistent with the above decision of the co-ordinate bench, we hold that the interest paid on delayed payment of TDS u/s 201(1A) is an allowable deduction. We direct accordingly. Assessee succeeds in its appeal. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Kiri Industries Ltd. vs. PC…

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)

…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 or promoting the business. As the payment of income-tax could not be with the intention of earning income, he submitted that there was no question of treating the interest on income tax refund as falling under the head `Profits and gains of business or profe…

DCIT Central Circle 6(1), Mumbai, Nariman Point Mumbai vs. Gnp Realty LLP, Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands partly allowed

ITA 3105/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, D.R

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 250

…deleted.” 10.2 The Revenue Department being aggrieved also challenged this addition. 10.3 We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival claims of the parties and observed that Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. vs. CIT 230 ITR 733 (SC) (1998) has also dealt with the identical issue as to whether interest paid for delayed payment of advance tax could be considered as wholly and exclusively for business to be allowable as business expenditure. The Hon’ble Apex Court ultimately laid down the dictum that interest paid for delayed payment of advance tax cannot be allowed as bus…

M/S.G.S. Atwal & Co.(Engg)(P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1009/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 36(1)(va)

…s not an item of expenditure. The amount not deducted and remitted has the character of tax and has to be remitted to the State and cannot be utilised by the assessee for its own business. The Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Commerce and Industries [1998] 230 ITR 733, rejected the argument advanced by the assessee that retention of money payable to the State as tax or income-tax would augment the capital of the assessee and the expenditure incurred, namely, interest paid for the period of such retention would assume character of business expenditure. The court G. S. Atwal & Co. (Engg.) Pvt. Ltd., AYs. 2017-18…

M/S.G.S. Atwal & Co.(Engg) (P)Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1008/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 36(1)(va)

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)

…the assessee. Thus any delay in the payment of TDS by the assessee cannot be linked to the income tax of the assessee and consequently the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Commerce Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) reported in 230 ITR 733 cannot be applied to the case on hand. Thus, in our considered view, the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Commerce Industries Ltd. (supra) is not applicable in the instant facts of the case. Thus, we hold that the Assessing Officer in the instant case has wrongly applied the principle laid down by the Hon'ble…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Central), Jabalpur vs. Anand Mining Corporation, Jabalpur

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 104/JAB/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur24 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

…It is the case of the assessee that the interest paid on TDS Rs.21,215/- is an allowable expense as it is not the payment of income tax of the assessee but of the deductees. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Commerce & Industries vs. CIT [1998] 230 ITR 733 (SC) held that the interest for late payment of direct taxes is not deductible expenditure from the profit & loss account of the assessee. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we find no error or infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of interest paid on account of late deposit of TDS and we find no merit in…

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

…s not an item of expenditure. The amount not deducted and remitted has the character of tax and has to be remitted to the State and cannot be utilised by the assessee for its own business. The Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Commerce and Industries [1998] 230 ITR 733, rejected the argument advanced by the assessee that retention of money payable to the State as tax or income-tax would augment the capital of the assessee and the expenditure incurred, namely, interest paid for the period of such retention would assume character of business expenditure. The court held that an assessee could not possibly claim th…

Flemingo Dutyfree Shop Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cen-Cir-8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2218/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhflemingo Dutyfree Shop Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-8(4) Private Limited, 6Th Floor, Aayakar D-73/1 Ttc D-73/1 Ttc Bhavan, M.K. Road, Industrial Area, New Marine Lines, Midc Turbhe, Churchgate, Navi Mumbai – 400705 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacf7909E Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : J.P. Baragra Respondent By : Ujjawal Kumar Chavan Date Of Hearing 26.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.10.2023

For Appellant: J.P. BaragraFor Respondent: Ujjawal Kumar Chavan

Section 143(2)Section 201Section 37(1)

…ny manner alter the character of the payment, namely, its character as income tax. 9. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted placing strong reliance on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd. v. CIT[1998] 230 ITR 733, that payments required to be made by way of income-tax under the Income-tax Act are not deductible as expenditure and the further amounts which a person may be required to pay by a reason of failure to comply with the provisions requiring the payments of the tax are also amounts which cannot be regarded as deductible expenditure under Section 37…

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)

…enditure. 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. PCIT u/s 263 is upheld on this issue.” 11. For similar reasons the disallowances w…

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 1734/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 263Section 37(1)

Sh. Nawal Kishore Dangayach, A-34-A, Ram Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 304/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary ( Addl. CIT) a

Section 14ASection 37

…te: 4. From the plain reading of the above provisions it can be noted that there is no provision in Income Tax Act for disallowance of the interest paid on late deposit of TDS. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd Vs. CIT (1988) 230 ITR 733 has held that payment of interest is inextricably connected with the assessee's tax liability. If income tax itself is not a permissible deduction u/s 37, interest payable for default committed in discharging the statutory obligation cannot be allowed as deduction. However, in respect of deduction of tax at source, the assessee act in the capacit…

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 152/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT

Section 115JSection 250Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80Section 80I

…(A) has relied upon the decision of Shree Cement Limited, Beawar. Ferro Alloys Corpn. (supra) in which the Hon’ble High Court has not discussed anything on merit considering the fact6 that the case Bharat Commerce Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (1985) 20 Taxman 302/153 ITR 275 was pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court and it observe that even in the case of Bharat Commerce Industries Ltd. the issue involved is relating to interest paid on late payment of advance-tax. Therefore, the issue involved in the present case is not relating to late remittance of advance-tax but late remittance of TDS. Therefore, the issue involv…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Circle-3, Ferozepur vs. Measage Om Sons Marketing Private Limited, Faridkot

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 407/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 37(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.407/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 JCIT, (OSD), Circle-3, Vs. M/s Om Sons Marketing Ferozepur. Pvt. Ltd. Quila Chowk, Faridkot (Punjab) (Appellant) [PAN: -AAACO8962E] (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Respondent by Sh. S. R. Kaushik,CIT.DR Date of Hearing 21.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement 07.07.2023 ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the revenue was filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal…

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

…ons operate in different fields, the former is an enabling provision while the latter is a disabling provision. 14. The question directly arose for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 230 ITR 733 and the question that was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in that case was whether payments required to be made by way of income-tax 'under the Income-tax Act are not deductible as expenditure and the further amounts which a person may be required to pay by a reason of failure to comply with the provisions requiring the payments of the ta…

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)

…nt of TDS/TCS at Rs. 6,96,533/- as business 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.  Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (1988) 230 ITR 733 (SC)  Aruna Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1957) 31 ITR 153 (Bom)  CIT vs. Chennai Properties and Ors. (1999) 239 ITR 435 (Mad.) 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 int…

M/S Premier Irrigation Adritec (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 387/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 2(24)Section 250Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…is not an item of expenditure. The amount not deducted and remitted has the character of tax and has to be remitted to the State and cannot be utilised by the assessee for its own business. The Supreme Court in the case ofBharat Commerce and Industries [1998] 230 ITR 733, rejected the argument advanced by the assessee that retention of money payable to the State as tax or income-tax would augment the capital of the assessee and the expenditure incurred, namely, interest paid for the period of such retention would assume character of business expenditure. The court held that an assessee could not possibly claim th…

M/S Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore

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

ITA 2835/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2835/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Dell International Services The Additional Commissioner India Private Limited Of Income-Tax (Ltu) V. Bangalore. Divyashree Greens, Sy.Nos.12/1, 12/2A & 13/1A,Challaghatta Village,Varthur Hobli Bengaluru – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.T.Suryanarayana, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Praveen Karanth, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2023 Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2023 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 30.11.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company, Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading In Computer Systems Including Support & Maintenance Services & Leasing Of Computers. For The Assessment Year 2013-2014, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2013 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.22,31,24,760. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Was Issued On 2 It(Tp)A No.2835/Bang/2017. M/S.Dell International Services India Private Limited. 11.09.2014. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Noticed That The International Transactions Entered By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) Had Exceeded The Prescribed Limit, Hence, The Matter Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The Said Transaction. The Tpo Passed Order U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act On 19.10.2016. In The Said Order, The Tpo Had Proposed Following Adjustments:-

For Appellant: Sri.T.Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Praveen Karanth, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 40Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…s not an item of expenditure. The amount not deducted and remitted has the character of tax and has to be remitted to the State and cannot be utilised by the assessee for its own business. The Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Commerce and Industries [1998] 230 ITR 733, rejected the argument advanced by the assessee that retention of money payable to the State as tax or income-tax would augment the capital of the assessee and the expenditure incurred, namely, interest paid for the period of such retention would assume character of business expenditure. The court held that an assessee could not possibly claim th…

M/S. Sahyog Homes Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1922/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Rifaur Rahman (

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

…made by the Assessing Officer in view of the Explanation to section 37(1) on the ground that the same was not made for the purpose of business and relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bharat Commerce & Industries vs CIT (1998) 230 ITR 733 (SC). Ld.CIT(A) also relied upon decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Ferro Alloys Ltd vs. CIT 196 ITR 406(Bom) and Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Martin & Harris Pvt Ltd vs CIT 73 taxmann 555(Cal) by returning following findings:- “6.4 It was submitted by the appellant that interest paid on Professional tax is compe…

M/S. Sahyog Homes Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1921/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Rifaur Rahman (

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