What is Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The levy of interest under the Income Tax Act is part of the assessment process and can be challenged in an appeal if the assessee disputes the chargeability of interest itself. However, claims for waiver or reduction of interest cannot be challenged in appeal and must be pursued through revisional jurisdiction.

How many judgments cite Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT?

31 judgments on BharatTax cite Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT (160 ITR 961), spanning 2009 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 139(5), Section 139(8), Section 143(1), Section 154, Section 215, Section 234A.

Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT (160 ITR 961)

Ajay Jaisinghani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 972/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: DR. K. R. Subhash (CIT-DR)

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 55(2)(aa)Section 55(2)(ac)

…as jurisdiction u/s. 246 to entertain and decide an appeal against the order u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 160 ITR 961, held that the levy of interest is part of the process of assessment and could be challenged in an appeal, provided the assessee disputes the chargeability of interest on the ground that he was 10 Ajay Jaisinghani not liable to the levy of interest at all and further, it held that where the assessee claims waiver or reduction of interest levied t…

M/S Gymkhana Club, Panchkula vs. ITO, W-3, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1305/CHANDI/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.D.Jain, Vice Prersident & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./Ita No 1305/Chd/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Gymkhana Club, Vs The Ito, Sector 6, Ward-3, Panchkula. Panchkula. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaag0115B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By: Shri S.K.Mukhi, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2024 उदघोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/10/2024 Physical Hearing आदेश/Order Per Vikram Singh Yadav,A.M.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Mukhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 234B

…noticed that the question regarding maintainability of appeal under Section 246 of the Act against order charging interest passed by the Assessing Officer under the Act was considered by the Apex Court in Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 160 ITR 961. It was observed that the levy of interest is the part of the process of assessment. Although Sections 143 and 144 of the Act do not specifically provide for the levy of interest but it is nevertheless a part of the process of assessing the tax liability of the assessee. The Supreme Court held that since levy of interest is a part of the process…

Bijni Dooars Tea Company Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kol-2, Kol, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 409/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Bijni Dooars Tea Company Principal Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kolkata-2, 4Th Floor, Room No. 1, Kolkata. Vs. Shantiniketan, 8, Camac Street, Kolkata-700017. (Pan: Aabcb1013E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Mita Rizvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, DR

Section 115PSection 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Bijni Dooars Tea Company Principal Commissioner of Ltd. Income-tax, Kolkata-2, 4th Floor, Room No. 1, Kolkata. Vs. Shantiniketan, 8, Camac Street, Kolkata-700017. (PAN: AABCB1013E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Mita Rizvi, CA Respondent by : Shri S. Datta, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 25.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 20.10.2023 ORDER PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by…

V.C.Nannapaneni vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax

ITTA/298/2007HC Telangana13 Sept 2023

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 234BSection 260A

…Section 234B was not of a penal nature and was clearly compensatory in nature and, therefore, the same could be levied retrospectively. He referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd v. CIT: [1986] 160 ITR 961, which was rendered in the context of Section 215 of the said Act which is similar to Section 234B of the said Act. The Supreme Court observed that it was necessary to consider the nature of levy of interest under Section 139 (8) and Section 215. The Supreme Court observed:- “it is not correct to refer to the levy of such interest as a pe…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(2), Hyderabad vs. Elgen (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 244/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Elgen (India) Pvt Ltd., Ward - 17(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaace 8520C (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Assessee By: Shri M. Poorna Chander Rao Date Of Hearing: 15/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2021

For Appellant: Shri M. Poorna Chander RaoFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar

Section 143(3)

…anesan. at the outset, very fairly admitted that this was not a case of assessee denying liability to the charging of both the types of interest and as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 160 ITR 961, no appeal in such a situation would lie with the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). He, in view of the Supreme Court's decision, did not press grounds of appeal Nos. 8 and 9 and was clear that consequential relief will no doubt be available to the assessee when the income computed is recalculated by giving the appeal effect. 52. Before partin…

M/S. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (Unit Bhilai Steel Plant) Ispat Bhawan . Through Its Sr. Manager (F and A) vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Raipur

C.A. No.-002150-002150 - 2012Supreme Court08 May 2019

Bench: Us. 2. Very Briefly Put, The Question Which We Are Called Upon To Consider & Resolve Is As To Whether Interest Is Payable On The Differential Excise Duty With Retrospective Effect That Become Payable On The Basis Of Escalation Clause Under Section 11Ab Of The Central Excise Act, 1944 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). 3. In This Batch Of Appeals, We Will Treat C.A. No.2150/2012 As The Leading Case. We Will Refer To The Said Case As The Sail Case. In The Said Case Originally, The Appellant Company Which Is Manufacturer Of Various Products Including Rail

Section 11Section 11A

…ion was, however, drawn by Mr Sen to two cases. Even in those cases, CIT v. M. Chandra Sekhar [(1985) 1 SCC 283 : 1985 SCC (Tax) 85 : (1985) 151 ITR 433] and Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT [(1986) 3 SCC 461 : 1986 SCC (Tax) 601 : (1986) 160 ITR 961] , all that the Court pointed out was that provision for charging interest was, it seems, introduced in order to compensate for the loss occasioned to the Revenue due to delay. But then interest was charged on the strength of a statutory provision, may be its objective was to compensate the Revenue for delay in payment of tax. But regard…

Smt. Harvinder Kaur, Kapurthala vs. A.C.I.T, Central Circle-I, Jalandhar

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

ITA 328/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 328/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alok Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…nsatory and mandatory by the Apex Court per its constitutional bench decision in CIT v. Anjum M. H. Ghaswala & Ors. [2011] 252 ITR 1 (SC). This is as the same is not appealable as held by the Apex Court in Central Provinces Maganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 160 ITR 961 (SC), unless the assessee denies his liability to interest (under the relevant sections), as in that case he is essentially challenging his assessment, which is (of course) appealable. We are conscious that the assessee’s grievance before us is of the ld. CIT(A) having not adjudicated her appeal in-so-far as it relates to the challenge to the lev…

The Baba Nag Rice & Genral Mills, Amritsar vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 375/ASR/2016[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 375/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 1998-99

For Appellant: Sh. Sudarshan Kapoor (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 234BSection 234B(1)Section 234B(3)Section 244A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 375/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 1998-99 Baba Naga Rice & General Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Mills, Vill. Basarke Bhaini, Tax, Circle-V, Amritsar Chheharta, Amritsar [PAN: AAEFB 8457G] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Sudarshan Kapoor (Adv.) Respondent by: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.) Date of Hearing: 04.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 24.05.2018 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee agitating the Order by the Co…

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1734/MUM/2016[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2018AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Blebharat Petroleum Corporation Limited V. Dy. Commissioner Of To Kochi Refineries Ltd Income Tax Bpcl Taxation Section, Bharat Bhavan Circle – 2(1), Aayakar Ii, 4 & 6, Currimbhoy Road, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai-400 020 Pan No: Aaacb 2902 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri L.K.S. Dahiya

Section 244ASection 244A(1)(b)

…as been perused by us. In our view, the same squarely covers the issue at hand. The decision by the apex court in the case of Central ITA No.8592/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2001-02) Tata Communications Limited vs. Asst. CIT Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1986] 160 ITR 961 (SC), wherein the issue involved was the denial to liability and/or charge of interest u/s.215 at a lesser amount, stands duly considered and distinguished by the Hon’ble high court. It is in this context that its stands explained that clause (c) of section 246 is in two parts, so that the assessee's appeal would fall in the second part, i.e., di…

DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai vs. Borosil Glass Works Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6583/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.6583/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Dy. Commissioner Of Income बनधम/ M/S Borosil Glass Works Ltd, 4Th Floor, Khanna Const. House- Tax Circle 6(1) R No.506, Vs. 44 Dr R G Thandani Marg, 5Th Floor, Ayakar Bhavan, Worli, M K Road, Mumbai-400018 Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacb5484G अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Revenue By Shrimati Bharti Singh प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.5.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.6.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.8.2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called As The Cit(A) For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Only Issue Raised In The Grounds Of Appeal Relates To Wrongful Adjudication Of Levy Of Interest Of Rs.71,64,280/- U/S 234C Dehors The Rules, Which Was Not 2 6583/Mum/2013

Section 115Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234CSection 246

…and therefore denied the interest u/s 234C as being payable for non-payment of advance tax in the first quarter. The ld. Counsel heavily relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd v. CIT : [1986] 160 ITR 961(SC) and the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Balmukund Acharya V/s DCIT reported in (2009) 310 ITR 310(Bom). The ld. Counsel objected to the appeal filed by the revenue as the ground raised by the revenue was not arising out of the order of ld.CIT(A). He further submitted that the AO did not appear before the ld. CIT(A…

Director of Income Tax vs. Jacabs Civil Inc

Appeals of the Department are dismissed

ITA/491/2008HC Delhi30 Aug 2010

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

Section 234B

…85-190]. Our attention was, however, drawn by Mr. Sen to two cases. Even in those cases, CIT vs. M. Chandra Sekhar (1985) 44 CTR (SC) 110 : (1985) 151 ITR 433 (SC) and Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1986) 58 CTR (SC) 112: (1986) 160 ITR 961 (SC), all that the Court pointed out was that provision for charging interest was, it seems, introduced in order to ITA No.491/2008 and connected matters Page 17 of 17 compensate for the loss occasioned to the Revenue due to delay. But then interest was charged on the strength…

Director of Income Tax vs. Mitsubishi Corporation

Appeals of the Department are dismissed

ITA - 297 / 2010HC Delhi30 Aug 2010

Section 143(2)Section 234B

…964) 3 SCR 164 at 185-190]. Our attention was, however, drawn by Mr. Sen to two cases. Even in those cases, CIT Chandra Sekhar (1985) 44 CTR (SC) 110 : (1985) 433 (SC) and Central Provinces **TTR** Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1986) 58 CTR (SC) 112: (1986) 160 ITR 961 (SC), all that the ![](_page_16_Picture_1.jpeg) compensate for the loss occasioned to the Revenue due to delay. But then interest was charged on the strength of a statutory provision, may be its objective was to compensate the Revenue for delay in payment of tax. But regardless of the reason which impelled the legislature to provide for chargin…

Director of Income Tax vs. Jacabs Civil Inc

Appeals of the Department are dismissed

ITA - 491 / 2008HC Delhi30 Aug 2010

Section 143(2)Section 234B

…185-190]. Our attention was, however, drawn by Mr. Sen to two cases. Even in those cases, CIT vs. M. Chandra Sekhar (1985) 44 CTR (SC) 110 : (1985) 151 ITR 433 (SC) and Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1986) 58 CTR (SC) 112 (1986) 160 ITR 961 (SC) ll th t th 2010:DHC:4256-DB compensate for the loss occasioned to the Revenue due to delay. But then interest was charged on the strength of a statutory provision, may be its objective was to compensate the Revenue for delay in payment of tax. But regardless of the reason which impelled the legislature to provide for charging inter…