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.

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 733)

DCIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi vs. Danisco India Pvt. Ltd., Gurugram

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is also dismissed

ITA 7898/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Jain, Sr.D.R

…tem 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 & Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 230 ITR 733/ 98 Taxman 151rejected the argument that retention of money payable to the State as tax or income-tax would augment the capital of the assessee and the 33 I.T.As. No.3518/DEL/2017 & 7896 to 7899/DEL/2018 expenditure incurred, namely, interest paid for the period of such retention, would assume the character of business expenditure. It held that…

Danisco India Pvt. Ltd., Gurugram vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is also dismissed

ITA 7897/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Jain, Sr.D.R

…tem 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 & Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 230 ITR 733/ 98 Taxman 151rejected the argument that retention of money payable to the State as tax or income-tax would augment the capital of the assessee and the 33 I.T.As. No.3518/DEL/2017 & 7896 to 7899/DEL/2018 expenditure incurred, namely, interest paid for the period of such retention, would assume the character of business expenditure. It held that…

Danisco India Pvt. Ltd., Gurugram vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is also dismissed

ITA 7896/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Jain, Sr.D.R

…tem 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 & Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 230 ITR 733/ 98 Taxman 151rejected the argument that retention of money payable to the State as tax or income-tax would augment the capital of the assessee and the 33 I.T.As. No.3518/DEL/2017 & 7896 to 7899/DEL/2018 expenditure incurred, namely, interest paid for the period of such retention, would assume the character of business expenditure. It held that…

Danisco India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is also dismissed

ITA 3518/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Jain, Sr.D.R

…tem 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 & Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 230 ITR 733/ 98 Taxman 151rejected the argument that retention of money payable to the State as tax or income-tax would augment the capital of the assessee and the 33 I.T.As. No.3518/DEL/2017 & 7896 to 7899/DEL/2018 expenditure incurred, namely, interest paid for the period of such retention, would assume the character of business expenditure. It held that…

New Modern Bazaar Departmental Store Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 31(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 590/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaa N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Negi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 201Section 37Section 37(1)

…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 t…

Muthoot Agri Development & Hospitalities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2237/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri O. P. Meena (Sr. AR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…assessee by the consistent view of this court right from Aruna Mills Ltd. [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 [1989] 180 ITR 37, have also taken the same view. Very fairly, Shri Bhide, learned counsel for the assessee, informs us that there is no decision which has taken a contrary view. 4. The reference has been made only because the special leave petition against the Delhi High Court decision in Bharat Commerce Industries Ltd.'s case [1985] 153 ITR 275 is pending before…

M/S. Works Station Systems (P) Ltd., Bhopal vs. ACIT (Central) Gwalior, Station Bhopal, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 933/IND/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Aug 2020AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 37Section 37(1)

…ITANo.933/2019 Work Station Systems P. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE SMC BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s. Work Station Systems P. ACIT(Central)Gwali Ltd., or Station at बनाम/ Govindpura, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No.AACCK6959K Appellant by Shri Gagan Tiwari, Adv. Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 19.08.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 26 .08.2020 आदेश / O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals [CIT(A)]-3, Bhopal dated 29.08.2019 pertainin…

Golden Arrow Travels Private Limited, Shillong vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Shillong

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

ITA 233/GTY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Jun 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 194JSection 40

…by the assesee. 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 case of Bharat Commerce Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (199 ) reported in 230 ITR 733 cannot be applied to the case on hand. 5 Golden Arrow Travels P.Ltd 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 pri…

Shri Vikram Singh Shekhawat, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Sikar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 484/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta, JCIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 154Section 234A

…t that disallowance/ addition made by the AO on account of payment of interest on delayed deposit of TDS is penal in nature. The ld.AR of the assessee relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Commerce Industries Ltd. vs CIT (1998) 230 ITR 733 which does not find force in this ground of the assessee. Hence, the Ground No. 3 of the assessee is dismissed. 32 Shri Vikram Singh Shekhawat vs DCIT Circle –Sikar 10.1 The Ground No. 4 of the assessee is regarding disallowance of rs15,97,572/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 10.2 In this case, the AO noted that the assessee paid interest of Rs.…

M/S Perfect Turners, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Jaipur

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

ITA 1115/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jan 2020AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta, JCIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…tem 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 & Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 230 ITR 733/ 98 Taxman 151 rejected the argument that retention of money payable to the State as tax or income- tax would augment the capital of the assessee and the 8 M/s. Perfect Turners vs DCIT, Circle – 4, Jaipur expenditure incurred, namely, interest paid for the period of such retention, would assume the character of business expenditure. It held that…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Maa Annapurna Transport Agency Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 822/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkery, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

Section 133(6)Section 68

…19 I.T.A No. 822/Kol/2018 A.Y 2013-14 M/s. Maa Annapurna Transport Agency Ltd. linked to the income tax of the assessee and consequently the principles laid down b the Hon 'ble Apex Court in case of Bharat Commerce Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (199 ) 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'bl…

Sigma Research & Consulting Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 23(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 7332/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2014-15 Sigma Research & Consulting Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, C-23, First Floor, South Extension, Ward-23(4), Part-I, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aamcs3537P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.V.S. Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2019 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 4Th September, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-8, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Ground Of Appeal No.1 By The Assessee Reads As Under:- “The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A) In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer In Disallowing The Sum Of Rs.75,449/- Being The Interest Paid On Late Deposit Of Tds, Is Illegal, Arbitrary, Unwarranted, Uncalled For & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.”

For Appellant: Shri K.V.S. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR

Section 37Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sigma Research & Consulting Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ITO, C-23, First Floor, South Extension, Ward-23(4), Part-I, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAMCS3537P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K.V.S. Gupta, Advocate Revenue by : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 05.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 26.09.2019 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 4th September, 2018 of the CIT(A)-8, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Ground of appea…

ITO 11(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Zenta P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1802/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ito 11(3)(4) Vs. M/S. Zenta Pvt. Ltd., Room No.429, 4Th Floor 6Th Floor, Unit No.601, Aayakar Bhavan Nomura Mumbai – 20 Hiranandani Business Park Powai, Mumbai – 400 076 Pan/Gir No.Aaach3235M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Co No.164/Mum/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1802/Mum/2015) (Assessment Year :2010-11) M/S. Zenta Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito 11(3)(4) 4Th Floor, Tower Ii Room No.429, 4Th Floor Phase Ii, Logitech Park Aayakar Bhavan Andheri Kurla Road Mumbai – 400020 Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 072 Pan/Gir No.Aaach3235M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Ito 11(3)(4) Vs. M/S. Zenta Pvt. Ltd., Room No.429, 4Th Floor 6Th Floor, Unit No.601, Aayakar Bhavan Nomura, Hiranandani Mumbai – 400020 Business Park, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076 Pan/Gir No.Aaach3235M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Co No.85/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.795/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year :2011-12) M/S. Accenture Solutions Vs. Ito 11(3)(4) Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known Aayakar Bhavan As Zenta Pvt. Ltd.,) Mumbai – 400020 M/S. Zenta Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Tower Ii Phase Ii, Logitech Park Andheri Kurla Road Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 072 Pan/Gir No.Aaach3235M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Income Tax Officer 3(3)(4) Vs. M/S. Accenture Solutions Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Tower Ii (Now Assessed Under Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Phase Ii, Logitech Park 11(3)(2), Room No.427 Andheri Kurla Road Aayakar Bhavan Andheri (E) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 072 Pan/Gir No.Aaach3235M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Co No.222/Mum/2014 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1623/Mum/2014) (Assessment Year :2009-10) M/S. Zenta Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito 3(3)(4) 4Th Floor, Tower Ii Room No.672, Phase Ii, Logitech Park Aayakar Bhavan Andheri Kurla Road Mumbai – 400020 Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 072 Pan/Gir No.Aaach3235M (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…payment of interest of delayed payment of TDS could be penal in nature so as to be disallowed in the light of the provisions of Explanation to Section 37(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the reliance placed by the ld. DR on certain decisions viz. 88 Taxman 184 and 230 ITR 733 need not to be adjudicated at all. We find that the main crux of the argument of the ld. DR was that there is no penalty provision provided in the statement for delayed payment of TDS. In this regard, the ld. AR rightly clarified before us that the statute indeed provides for levy of penalty u/s.271C of the Act for such violation. Hence, the argu…

M/S Fitwel Tools & Forgings Private Limited, Tumkur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 449/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. P.V Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT

Section 3(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

…the view that the assessee has not claimed service tax, excise duty and VAT as part of its expenses in the profit and loss account. Further the AO took the view that the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Industries Ltd., Vs. CIT 230 ITR 733, in which it was held that the interest paid for committing any fault in payment of advance tax is not permissible deduction u/s 37 of the Act, would apply to the interest expenditure claimed by the assessee. Accordingly he disallowed the interest amount of Rs.2.64 lakhs paid along with service tax, excise duty and VAT. The ld CIT(A) also confirm…

M/S. Gupta Bros. (India), New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1111/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1110/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1111/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 M/S Gupta Bros. (India), Vs Acit, 232, Jor Bagh, Circle-38(1), New Delhi-110003 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafg4325Q Assessee By : Sh. S. Krishna & V. Raj Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 31.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.08.2019 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Civil Construction Contractor Engaged In The Business Of Repairs Of Civil Works. During The Year The Assessee Has Incurred Labour Expenses Of Rs.11.39 Crores Against The Total Work Executed Of Rs.62.81 Crores. The Assessing Officer Held That The 18.14% Of The Labour Expenses Over The Turnover Is Far More Excessive Than The Labour Expenses In The Earlier Years Of 15.22% To 16.99%. He Further Held That The Labour Payments Been Made In The Months February & March Are To The Tune Of Rs.1.29 Crores & The Gross Turnover For The March Month Is Rs.9.97 Crores & The Percentage Of Labour Is About 13.26%. Based On Comparison Of The Payments Of The Ita Nos. 1110 & 1111/Del/2015 2 Gupta Bros. (India) Earlier Years, The Assessing Officer Has Disallowed Rs.25 Lacs On Account Of Labour Payment.

For Appellant: Sh. S. Krishna & V. Raj Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

…(1) as the TDS amount did not represent the tax of assessee but it was the tax of the party which had been paid by assessee. In the case of Shree Saras Spices & Food P. Limited Vs. DCIT after due consideration of Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. v. CIT (198) 230 ITR 733 (SC) and East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 627 (SC)held that no deduction is allowable for the interest paid on late deposit of the TDS. The legislature does not envisage utilization of the tax deducted on behalf of the State to be utilized by the deductor for personal gains and pay interest on the same and then to claim…

M/S. Gupta Bros. (India), New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1110/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1110/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1111/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 M/S Gupta Bros. (India), Vs Acit, 232, Jor Bagh, Circle-38(1), New Delhi-110003 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafg4325Q Assessee By : Sh. S. Krishna & V. Raj Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 31.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.08.2019 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Civil Construction Contractor Engaged In The Business Of Repairs Of Civil Works. During The Year The Assessee Has Incurred Labour Expenses Of Rs.11.39 Crores Against The Total Work Executed Of Rs.62.81 Crores. The Assessing Officer Held That The 18.14% Of The Labour Expenses Over The Turnover Is Far More Excessive Than The Labour Expenses In The Earlier Years Of 15.22% To 16.99%. He Further Held That The Labour Payments Been Made In The Months February & March Are To The Tune Of Rs.1.29 Crores & The Gross Turnover For The March Month Is Rs.9.97 Crores & The Percentage Of Labour Is About 13.26%. Based On Comparison Of The Payments Of The Ita Nos. 1110 & 1111/Del/2015 2 Gupta Bros. (India) Earlier Years, The Assessing Officer Has Disallowed Rs.25 Lacs On Account Of Labour Payment.

For Appellant: Sh. S. Krishna & V. Raj Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

…(1) as the TDS amount did not represent the tax of assessee but it was the tax of the party which had been paid by assessee. In the case of Shree Saras Spices & Food P. Limited Vs. DCIT after due consideration of Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. v. CIT (198) 230 ITR 733 (SC) and East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 627 (SC)held that no deduction is allowable for the interest paid on late deposit of the TDS. The legislature does not envisage utilization of the tax deducted on behalf of the State to be utilized by the deductor for personal gains and pay interest on the same and then to claim…

DCIT, Corporate Citcle -3(2), Chennai vs. Vsl India Pvt.Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 138/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.138/Chny/2018. "नधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year :2012-13

For Appellant: Mr.R.Clement Ramesh KumarFor Respondent: Mr.T.Vasudevan,Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 75

…see Dusseldorf India pvt ltd., was not accepted by the Department and further appeal is not suggested only on account of low tax effect. 2.3 The ld.CIT(A) ought to have followed the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s.Bharat Commrce Industries Ltd.,(153 ITR 275) wherein the Apex Court held that any interest payable for default committed by the assessee in discharging his statutory liability is not allowable expenditure. 3. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.”…

Gmr Hyderabad International Airport Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2189/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaranassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.V Pradeep Kumar, CIT

Section 30

…yed deposit of service tax and VAT. The AO disallowed the same, apparently by treating the same as penalty. The ld CIT(A) confirmed the same by following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharath Commerce & Industries Ltd., Vs. CIT 230 ITR 733. Page 10 of 12 17. Before us, the ld AR placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kaypee Mechanical India Pvt. Ltd., 45 taxmann.com 363 and also decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakmandas Maturdas Vs. CIT 122 taxmann.com 828 and submitted that the interest paid for dela…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dlf Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2749/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri SatyajeetFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Rai, Adv. Special counsel

Section 10Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

…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…

Dlf Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2126/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri SatyajeetFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Rai, Adv. Special counsel

Section 10Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

…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…

Bharat Commerce Industries Ltd. v. CIT

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

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Bharat Commerce Industries Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi vs. Danisco India Pvt. Ltd., Gurugram

Danisco India Pvt. Ltd., Gurugram vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

Danisco India Pvt. Ltd., Gurugram vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

Danisco India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

New Modern Bazaar Departmental Store Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 31(1), New Delhi

Muthoot Agri Development & Hospitalities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(2)(2), Mumbai

M/S. Works Station Systems (P) Ltd., Bhopal vs. ACIT (Central) Gwalior, Station Bhopal, Bhopal

Golden Arrow Travels Private Limited, Shillong vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Shillong

Shri Vikram Singh Shekhawat, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Sikar

M/S Perfect Turners, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Jaipur

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Maa Annapurna Transport Agency Ltd., Kolkata

Sigma Research & Consulting Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 23(4), New Delhi

ITO 11(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Zenta P.Ltd, Mumbai

M/S Fitwel Tools & Forgings Private Limited, Tumkur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

M/S. Gupta Bros. (India), New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

M/S. Gupta Bros. (India), New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

DCIT, Corporate Citcle -3(2), Chennai vs. Vsl India Pvt.Ltd., Chennai

Gmr Hyderabad International Airport Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dlf Ltd., New Delhi

Dlf Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi