Chintamani Hatcheries (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT

75 ITD 116Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2000#8165 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Issues it is cited on

section 115wasection 10(4)section 2(43)section 115wsection 194a(1)section 2(28a)section 194a(3)section 40(a)(ii)far analysissection 135prohibited by lawsection 194h

Judgments citing Chintamani Hatcheries (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT

EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 20/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…tion and, therefore, it cannot be reckoned as payment for rendering of any managerial services by the bank as held by the AO. This has been reiterated by the ITAT Pune Bench in the following cases: i) Chintamani Hatcheries (P.) Ltd v DCIT, reported in [2000] 75 ITD 116 (Pune) (SMC) and ii) Ghatge Patil Ltd. Vs ACIT, reported in [2011] 11 taxman.com 168 (Pune) Despite such a payment to the Nationalized Bank falls within the ambit of "interest" under section 2(28) but the TDS provisions under section 194A are not applicable, because it falls within the exclusionary provisions as laid down in sub- section (3) of se…

EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 19/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…tion and, therefore, it cannot be reckoned as payment for rendering of any managerial services by the bank as held by the AO. This has been reiterated by the ITAT Pune Bench in the following cases: i) Chintamani Hatcheries (P.) Ltd v DCIT, reported in [2000] 75 ITD 116 (Pune) (SMC) and ii) Ghatge Patil Ltd. Vs ACIT, reported in [2011] 11 taxman.com 168 (Pune) Despite such a payment to the Nationalized Bank falls within the ambit of "interest" under section 2(28) but the TDS provisions under section 194A are not applicable, because it falls within the exclusionary provisions as laid down in sub- section (3) of se…

EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 18/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…tion and, therefore, it cannot be reckoned as payment for rendering of any managerial services by the bank as held by the AO. This has been reiterated by the ITAT Pune Bench in the following cases: i) Chintamani Hatcheries (P.) Ltd v DCIT, reported in [2000] 75 ITD 116 (Pune) (SMC) and ii) Ghatge Patil Ltd. Vs ACIT, reported in [2011] 11 taxman.com 168 (Pune) Despite such a payment to the Nationalized Bank falls within the ambit of "interest" under section 2(28) but the TDS provisions under section 194A are not applicable, because it falls within the exclusionary provisions as laid down in sub- section (3) of se…

EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 17/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…tion and, therefore, it cannot be reckoned as payment for rendering of any managerial services by the bank as held by the AO. This has been reiterated by the ITAT Pune Bench in the following cases: i) Chintamani Hatcheries (P.) Ltd v DCIT, reported in [2000] 75 ITD 116 (Pune) (SMC) and ii) Ghatge Patil Ltd. Vs ACIT, reported in [2011] 11 taxman.com 168 (Pune) Despite such a payment to the Nationalized Bank falls within the ambit of "interest" under section 2(28) but the TDS provisions under section 194A are not applicable, because it falls within the exclusionary provisions as laid down in sub- section (3) of se…

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(2), NEW DELHI vs. EXPENDITORS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6953/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…tion and, therefore, it cannot be reckoned as payment for rendering of any managerial services by the bank as held by the AO. This has been reiterated by the ITAT Pune Bench in the following cases: i) Chintamani Hatcheries (P.) Ltd v DCIT, reported in [2000] 75 ITD 116 (Pune) (SMC) and ii) Ghatge Patil Ltd. Vs ACIT, reported in [2011] 11 taxman.com 168 (Pune) Despite such a payment to the Nationalized Bank falls within the ambit of "interest" under section 2(28) but the TDS provisions under section 194A are not applicable, because it falls within the exclusionary provisions as laid down in sub- section (3) of se…

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(2), NEW DELHI vs. EXPENDITORS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5538/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…tion and, therefore, it cannot be reckoned as payment for rendering of any managerial services by the bank as held by the AO. This has been reiterated by the ITAT Pune Bench in the following cases: i) Chintamani Hatcheries (P.) Ltd v DCIT, reported in [2000] 75 ITD 116 (Pune) (SMC) and ii) Ghatge Patil Ltd. Vs ACIT, reported in [2011] 11 taxman.com 168 (Pune) Despite such a payment to the Nationalized Bank falls within the ambit of "interest" under section 2(28) but the TDS provisions under section 194A are not applicable, because it falls within the exclusionary provisions as laid down in sub- section (3) of se…

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(2), NEW DELHI vs. EXPENDITORS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5994/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…tion and, therefore, it cannot be reckoned as payment for rendering of any managerial services by the bank as held by the AO. This has been reiterated by the ITAT Pune Bench in the following cases: i) Chintamani Hatcheries (P.) Ltd v DCIT, reported in [2000] 75 ITD 116 (Pune) (SMC) and ii) Ghatge Patil Ltd. Vs ACIT, reported in [2011] 11 taxman.com 168 (Pune) Despite such a payment to the Nationalized Bank falls within the ambit of "interest" under section 2(28) but the TDS provisions under section 194A are not applicable, because it falls within the exclusionary provisions as laid down in sub- section (3) of se…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. EXPENDITORS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2260/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…tion and, therefore, it cannot be reckoned as payment for rendering of any managerial services by the bank as held by the AO. This has been reiterated by the ITAT Pune Bench in the following cases: i) Chintamani Hatcheries (P.) Ltd v DCIT, reported in [2000] 75 ITD 116 (Pune) (SMC) and ii) Ghatge Patil Ltd. Vs ACIT, reported in [2011] 11 taxman.com 168 (Pune) Despite such a payment to the Nationalized Bank falls within the ambit of "interest" under section 2(28) but the TDS provisions under section 194A are not applicable, because it falls within the exclusionary provisions as laid down in sub- section (3) of se…

M/S EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2242/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…tion and, therefore, it cannot be reckoned as payment for rendering of any managerial services by the bank as held by the AO. This has been reiterated by the ITAT Pune Bench in the following cases: i) Chintamani Hatcheries (P.) Ltd v DCIT, reported in [2000] 75 ITD 116 (Pune) (SMC) and ii) Ghatge Patil Ltd. Vs ACIT, reported in [2011] 11 taxman.com 168 (Pune) Despite such a payment to the Nationalized Bank falls within the ambit of "interest" under section 2(28) but the TDS provisions under section 194A are not applicable, because it falls within the exclusionary provisions as laid down in sub- section (3) of se…

M/S MFAR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed

ITA 731/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale1. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No.730/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No.731/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year; 2014-15) M/S.Mfar Developers Pvt. Ltd. No.3, Lavelle Road, Bengaluru-560 001. … Appellant Pan:Aafcm 6271 M Vs. 1-2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. 3. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.K.Chythanya, Advocate. Respondent By : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed Appeals Against Different Orders Of The Cit(A) For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014- 15. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 & 730 & 731/Bang/2018 Page 2 Of 16 2. As Far As Ground No.2 In Respect Of Disallowance Of Proportionate Interest U/S 24(B) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short], The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-13 & 2014-15. Similarly, For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised An Alternative Plea To Allow Interest U/S 36(1)(Iii) Which Is Also Ground Of Appeal In Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Raised Ground For Allowance Of Deduction Towards Processing Fees & Pre-Payment Charges U/S 24(B) Of The Act. For The Assessment Year 2013-14, The Assessee Has Raised A Ground For Disallowance Of Rs.25,77,78/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Chythanya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 14ASection 24Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…g is done before the grant of the loan cannot be put against the assessee in the light of the definition. The assessee's contentions are also supported by the order of the Single Member, Pune Bench in the case of Chintamani Hatcheries (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2000) 75 ITD 116 (Pune) (SMC). where it has been held that processing fee for obtaining a loan is a service fee and has to be allowed as interest in view of the definition in section 2(28A). The Circular No. 202, dated 5tn July 1976, issued by the CBDT (copy filed) while explaining the provisions of section 2(28A) also clarify the position. We therefore accept the…

M/S MFAR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed

ITA 730/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale1. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No.730/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No.731/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year; 2014-15) M/S.Mfar Developers Pvt. Ltd. No.3, Lavelle Road, Bengaluru-560 001. … Appellant Pan:Aafcm 6271 M Vs. 1-2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. 3. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.K.Chythanya, Advocate. Respondent By : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed Appeals Against Different Orders Of The Cit(A) For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014- 15. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 & 730 & 731/Bang/2018 Page 2 Of 16 2. As Far As Ground No.2 In Respect Of Disallowance Of Proportionate Interest U/S 24(B) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short], The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-13 & 2014-15. Similarly, For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised An Alternative Plea To Allow Interest U/S 36(1)(Iii) Which Is Also Ground Of Appeal In Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Raised Ground For Allowance Of Deduction Towards Processing Fees & Pre-Payment Charges U/S 24(B) Of The Act. For The Assessment Year 2013-14, The Assessee Has Raised A Ground For Disallowance Of Rs.25,77,78/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Chythanya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 14ASection 24Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…g is done before the grant of the loan cannot be put against the assessee in the light of the definition. The assessee's contentions are also supported by the order of the Single Member, Pune Bench in the case of Chintamani Hatcheries (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2000) 75 ITD 116 (Pune) (SMC). where it has been held that processing fee for obtaining a loan is a service fee and has to be allowed as interest in view of the definition in section 2(28A). The Circular No. 202, dated 5tn July 1976, issued by the CBDT (copy filed) while explaining the provisions of section 2(28A) also clarify the position. We therefore accept the…

M/S MFAR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed

ITA 1649/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale1. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No.730/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No.731/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year; 2014-15) M/S.Mfar Developers Pvt. Ltd. No.3, Lavelle Road, Bengaluru-560 001. … Appellant Pan:Aafcm 6271 M Vs. 1-2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. 3. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.K.Chythanya, Advocate. Respondent By : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed Appeals Against Different Orders Of The Cit(A) For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014- 15. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 & 730 & 731/Bang/2018 Page 2 Of 16 2. As Far As Ground No.2 In Respect Of Disallowance Of Proportionate Interest U/S 24(B) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short], The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-13 & 2014-15. Similarly, For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised An Alternative Plea To Allow Interest U/S 36(1)(Iii) Which Is Also Ground Of Appeal In Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Raised Ground For Allowance Of Deduction Towards Processing Fees & Pre-Payment Charges U/S 24(B) Of The Act. For The Assessment Year 2013-14, The Assessee Has Raised A Ground For Disallowance Of Rs.25,77,78/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Chythanya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 14ASection 24Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…g is done before the grant of the loan cannot be put against the assessee in the light of the definition. The assessee's contentions are also supported by the order of the Single Member, Pune Bench in the case of Chintamani Hatcheries (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2000) 75 ITD 116 (Pune) (SMC). where it has been held that processing fee for obtaining a loan is a service fee and has to be allowed as interest in view of the definition in section 2(28A). The Circular No. 202, dated 5tn July 1976, issued by the CBDT (copy filed) while explaining the provisions of section 2(28A) also clarify the position. We therefore accept the…

DCIT (TDS) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. LAQSHYA MEDIA P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5157/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. & Sanjay Garg,J.M. आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita No.5157/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dcit (Tds)-2(1) M/S. Laqshya Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.702, 7Th Floor, Laqshya House , Next To Rameshwar Smt. K.G. Mittal Ayirvedic Hospital Temple, Saraswati Baug Society Vs. Building, Charni Rd. Rd.,Jogeshwari (E) Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400 060. Pan: Aaacl 5004 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke Assessee By: Shri S. Sriram सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 15.02.2017 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act)

For Appellant: Shri S. SriramFor Respondent: Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke
Section 133Section 133(6)Section 194A(3)Section 194CSection 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 254(1)

…ition and, therefore, it cannot be reckoned as payment for rendering of any managerial services by the bank as held by the AO. This has been reiterated by the ITAT Pune Bench in the following cases: i) Chintamani Hatcheries (P.) Ltd v DCIT, reported in [2000] 75 ITD 116 (Pune) (SMC) and ii) Ghatge Patil Ltd v ACIT, reported in [2011] 11 taxman.com 168 (Pune) Despite such a payment to the Nationalized Bank falls within the ambit of “interest” under section 2(28) but the TDS provisions under section 194A are not applicable, because it falls within the exclusionary provisions as laid down in sub- section (3) of sec…

PEEPUL TREE PROPERTIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6258/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Peepul Tree Properties P. Ltd., Asst. Cit 5(1) C/O. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Army & Navy Bldg. 3Rd Floor, M.K. Rd. Vs. 148, M.G. Rd. Mumbai- Mumbai-400001 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaecm6392E "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri M.M. Golvala (Ar) Shri C.W. Angolkar (Dr) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 13/04/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 20/05/2016

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 23Section 24

…g is done before the grant of the loan cannot be put against the assessee in the light of the definition. The assessee’s contentions are also supported by the order of the Single Member, Pune Bench in the case of Chintamani Hatcheries (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2000) 75 ITD 116 (Pune) (SMC), where it has been held that processing fee for obtaining a loan is a service fee and has to be allowed as interest in view of the definition in section 2(28A). The Circular No. 202, dated 5th July 1976, issued by the CBDT (copy filed) while explaining the provisions of section 2(28A) also clarify the position. We therefore accept the…