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

Hitech Plast Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), Mumbai

ITA 4358/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. B. R. Baskaran, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4358/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit (Osd) Rg 8(1) Hitech Plast Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Earlier Known As Clear Road, Mumbai-20 Mipak Packaging Solutions Ltd. बिधम/ Unit No. 201, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Welspun House, Kamala City, Senapati Bpat Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai- 400013 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaacc4489N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Dalpat Shah प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Ms. Pooja Swaroop सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 25.01.18 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30.01.18 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeal) -16, Mumbai Dated 31.03.16 For Ay 2011-12 On The Grounds Mentioned Herein Below:-

For Appellant: Shri Dalpat ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 37

…2. CIT V/s Messee Dusseldorf India (P) Ltd. 129 TTJ 81 (Del)(URO 3. Lachmandas Mathuradas 254 ITR 799 (SC) 4. Arthur Anderson & Co. V/s ACIT 324 ITR 240 (Born) 5. Harshad Shantilal Mehta V/s Custodian 231 ITR 871 (SC) 6. Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. 230 ITR 733 (SC) 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR defended the findings of revenue authorities and relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble 5 I.T.A. No. 4358/Mum/2016 Hitech Plast Ltd Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. Vrs. CIT 230 ITR 733 (SC). 6. We have heard counsels for both the parties at length and we have also perused the materi…

Take Solutions Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 175/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.M. Doss, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 92B

…t is an allowable deduction u/s. 37 as the interest paid on service tax is compensatory in nature. Per contra, the DR relied on the order of that DRP which relied on the cases of Bharat Steels Tubes Ltd., 226 ITR 750 Delhi, Bharat Commerce and Industry Ltd., 230 ITR 733 (SC), jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd., 239 ITR 439. :-9-: 8. We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the relevant material. The fact involved with the decision of the Delhi High Court, supra, was on the penalty paid for the delayed payment of sales tax. The fact involved…

Gamesa Renewable Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 376/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Smt. Vijayalakshmi, CIT,D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)

…that interest paid for delayed payment of service-tax is allowable. However, in respect of payment of interest on delayed TDS payment it cannot be allowed in view of the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (230 ITR 733). Further, the Kolkotta High Court in the case of East India Pharmaceutical India Ltd. Vs. CIT 114 ITR 423 wherein it was held that interest paid on money borrowed for the payment of income tax could not be allowed as a business expenditure.In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that interest on delay in payment of service tax,…

Gamesa Renewable Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1420/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Smt. Vijayalakshmi, CIT,D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)

Control Risks India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 979/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.Prashant Maharishi

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…of late deposit of. TDS also partakes the character of an expense, which is allowable as expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. 11.4. The Panel has examined the matter. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. V. CIT [1998] 230 ITR 733/98 Taxman 151 (SC) has held that Interest paid under section 215 for failure to pay advance tax up to statutory percentage would not be allowable as business expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act. Moreover, where taxpayer declared income under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme and tax was paid in installments with interest, interest paid was held not deduct…

Vijay H Jaiswal, Mumbai vs. ACIT 21(2), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2617/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2617/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Lovish Kumar

Section 143Section 37(1)

…of the Act. We find support from the decision of co-ordinate bench of ITAT (Ahmedabad) in ITA No. 1363/Ahd/2010. The decision of co-ordinate bench is based on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bharat Commerce & Industries vs. CIT 230 ITR 733 (SC) wherein similar issue was involved and it was held that interest for late payment of direct taxes is not deductible. Therefore, following the principles of consistency and respectfully following the judgement rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench we dismiss this ground of appeal. Ground No.3 9. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is engaged in…

ITO 8(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Nistha Mall Management Co. P . Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2743/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2743/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-8(2)(3), Nishta Mall Management Co. Pvt. Room No. 213, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar, Mumbai-400 020 Off. Jogeshwari, Vikhroli Link Vs. Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai-400 060 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecm 0705 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Randhir Gupta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nishit Gandhi सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 24.2.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 29.2.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 14.1.2013, Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 30.11.2011. 2. The Principal Issue Arising In This Appeal, Agitated Per Its’ First Four Grounds, Is In Respect Of The Head Of Income Under Which The Rental Income For Allowing The User

For Appellant: Shri Randhir GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Nishit Gandhi

Section 143(3)Section 56

…to the Revenue, for the delay in deposit of tax or other levy under the Act would qualify as a business expenditure, a wholly unmaintainable proposition, rejected by the Apex Court, as in the cases of Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [1998] 230 ITR 733 (SC) and East India Pharmaceutical Works vs. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 627 (SC). Why, income-tax itself would stand to qualify as a deductible business expense. The assessee’s case is wholly without merit, so that the said income would only be assessable u/s. 56. We decide accordingly. 5. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed. प"रणामतः…

Antwerp Diamonds Bank Nv, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) RG 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 8480/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Us Is A Foreign Banking Company Incorporated In Belgium & Is Tax Resident Of Belgium. It Is Carrying On Banking Business In India On The Strength Of Licence Granted By The Reserve Bank Of India. For The Year Under Consideration, It Filed A Return Of Income On 14/11/2007 Disclosing A Total Income Of Rs.41,78,76,187/-, Which Was Subject To Scrutiny Assessment, Wherein The Total Income Has Been Assessed At Rs.42,40,38,700/-. The Assessment Under Section 143(3) R.W. 144C(13) Of The Act Dated 11/10/2011 Was Finalized By The Assessing Officer In Terms Of The Directions Issued By Drp-1, Mumbai Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act Dated 23/9/2011. The Appellant Had Approached The Drp Against The Variation To The Returned Income Proposed By The Assessing Officer In His Draft Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144C(1) Of The Act Dated 23/12/2010. In This Background, We May Now Take Up The Four Issues Raised By The Assessee In Seriatim.

For Appellant: S/Shri K.K.Ved & N.A.PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Vandana Sagar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 40

…d., (2011) 15 taxmann.com 381(Pune)(TM) 9. Having considered the rival submissions, in our considered opinion, there can be no two opinions that in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. vs. CIT , 230 ITR 733 (SC), interest payable for defaults committed by the assessee in discharging statutory obligation of payment of advance tax is not a permissible deduction. As per the Hon’ble Supreme Court payment of such interest is inextricably connected with assessee’s tax liability and, therefore, the same has also to be considered as falling within the purvi…

Director of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. National Association of Software and Service Companies (Nasscom)

In the result the appeals are disposed of as above with no order as to

ITA - 17 / 2011HC Delhi10 May 2012

Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 260A

…ITA 17/2011 etc. Page 1 of 38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 27th April, 2012 % Date of Decision: 10th May, 2012 + ITA No.17/2011 + ITA No.18/2011 + ITA No.19/2011 + ITA No.20/2011 + ITA No.472/2011 + ITA No.477/2011 + ITA No.480/2011 + ITA No.519/2011 + ITA No.520/2011 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) .....Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing. Mr.Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms.Anshul Sharma, Adv. Versus NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOFTWARE AND SERVICES COMP…

Director of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. Services Companies

In the result the appeals are disposed of as above with no order as to

ITA/17/2011HC Delhi10 May 2012

Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 260A