What is CIT v. Chandershekher authority for?

Interest levied under the Income Tax Act is in the nature of compensation and not a penalty.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Chandershekher?

33 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Chandershekher (151 ITR 433), spanning 2009 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Chandershekher come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 263, Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 119, Section 132.

CIT v. Chandershekher (151 ITR 433)

Worldview Education Services Private Lmited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1056/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1056/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Worldview Education Services Private Limited, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad – 500 016. Ward-17(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Aaacw9480F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca C. Maheshwar Reddy राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: G Saratha, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19.12.2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA C. Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: G Saratha, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

…Ltd vs Add. CIT and Others 445 ITRI 83 (Kar.-HC); 5. CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del.-HC); 6. Pr. CIT vs. Deccan Jewellers P. Ltd. 438 ITR 131 (AP- HC); 7. D. Pedda Reddaiah vs. ITO, dated 30.04.2020 (ITAT, Hyd. Tribu); 8. CIT vs. M. Chandra Sekhar 151 ITR 433 (SC). 9. CIT vs. Mulchand Bagri (108 CTR 206 Cal.). 10. CIT vs. D P Karai (266 ITR 113 Guj); 9 ITA.No.1056/Hyd./2025 11. Paul Mathews vs. CIT (263 ITR 101 Ker); 12. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC) 3.1. He has submitted that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court for the State of Telangana in…

India Japan Lighting Private Limited, Chennai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 4, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1427/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1427/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 V. M/S. India Japan Lighting Pvt. Ltd., The Pcit-4, No.1, Tiruvallur High Road, Chennai. Puduchatram B.O., Thirumazhisai, Tiruvallur-600 124. [Pan: Aaaci 2673 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

…no ambiguity in the interpretation of the said provision. 31. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed alongwith the pending application(s), if any’’. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. M.Chandra Sekhar [151 ITR 433 (SC)] has held that the presumption that A.O. has M/s. India Japan Lighting Pvt. Ltd. :: 15 :: considered the details filed by the assessee was "founded" on the principle that an officer entrusted with a judicial or quasi- judicial duty must be presumed to have discharged his duties in a proper and bonafide manner. This view is confirmed by th…

Ct. Ramanathan (HUF), Pudukkottai vs. PCIT 1, Madurai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 761/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.761/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 C.T.Ramanathan(Huf), Income Tax Officer, No.7/45, Ct.Rm.S.House, M.St.S. Street Ward-1, Kulipirai, Pudukottai Dist, Pudukottai. Tamil Nadu-622 402. [Pan: Aaahc0701L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.V.Subbarayan, Dcit(Retd.) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.M.K.Biju, Cir Dr By Virtual. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr.V.Subbarayan, DCIT(Retd.)For Respondent: Mr.M.K.Biju, CIR DR by virtual

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3

…g no ambiguity in the interpretation of the said provision. 31. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed along with the pending application(s), if any’’. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. M.Chandra Sekhar [151 ITR 433 (SC)] has held that the presumption that A.O. has considered the details filed by the assessee was "founded" on the principle that an officer entrusted with a judicial or quasi- judicial duty must be presumed to have discharged his duties in a proper and bonafide manner. This view is confirmed by the full bench decision of the Delhi high court in…

Sunitha, Coimbatore vs. PCIT -1, Coim, Batore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2013/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2013/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sunitha, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No.30, Sivaji Colony, Income Tax -1, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore 641 025. [Pan: Bhqps 4789G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, IRS, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 69

…d provision. 31. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed alongwith the pending application(s), if any’’. 15. We also take judicial notice of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. M.Chandra Sekhar [151 ITR 433 (SC)] wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the presumption that A.O. has considered the details filed by the assessee was "founded" on the principle that an officer entrusted with a judicial or quasi- judicial duty must be presumed to have discharged his duties in a proper and bonafide manner. This view is confirmed by the full bench d…

V.S. Natarajan, Thanjavur vs. ACIT, CC-3(2), Chennai

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1604/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1603 & 1604/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Valikaramuthu Subramanian Assistant Commissioner Of Natarajan, V. Income-Tax, No. 104-B, 3Rd Street, Central Circle -3(2), Mangalapuram, Medical College Chennai. Road, Voc Nagar, Thanjavur – 613 007. [Pan: Acypn-0616-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 263

…assessment orders have been ignored by the Ld.PCIT, while setting aside the assessment order looking it in isolation. 9. In support of the above arguments, the Ld.AR referred the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. M.Chandra Sekhar (151 ITR 433) (SC), which has been held that the presumption that A.O. has considered the details filed by the assessee was "founded" on the principle that an officer entrusted with a judicial or quasi- judicial duty must be presumed to have discharged his duties in a proper and bonafide manner. This view is confirmed by the full bench decision of the Delhi h…

V.S. Natarajan, Thanjavur vs. ACIT, CC-3(2), Chennai

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1603/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1603 & 1604/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Valikaramuthu Subramanian Assistant Commissioner Of Natarajan, V. Income-Tax, No. 104-B, 3Rd Street, Central Circle -3(2), Mangalapuram, Medical College Chennai. Road, Voc Nagar, Thanjavur – 613 007. [Pan: Acypn-0616-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 263

…assessment orders have been ignored by the Ld.PCIT, while setting aside the assessment order looking it in isolation. 9. In support of the above arguments, the Ld.AR referred the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. M.Chandra Sekhar (151 ITR 433) (SC), which has been held that the presumption that A.O. has considered the details filed by the assessee was "founded" on the principle that an officer entrusted with a judicial or quasi- judicial duty must be presumed to have discharged his duties in a proper and bonafide manner. This view is confirmed by the full bench decision of the Delhi h…

Faiveley Transport Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Hosur vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1598/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80

…ing no ambiguity in the interpretation of the said provision. 31. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed alongwith the pending application(s), if any’’. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. M.Chandra Sekhar [151 ITR 433 (SC)] has held that the presumption that A.O. has considered the details filed by the assessee was "founded" on the principle that an officer entrusted with a judicial or quasi- judicial duty must be presumed to have discharged his duties in a proper and bonafide manner. This view is confirmed by the full bench decision of the Delhi high court in…

St.Joseph'S Educational Trust, Chennai vs. PCIT Central Chennai - 1, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1620/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1618 & 1619 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Institute Of Science & Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Technology Trust, Tax, No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Central, Chennai -1 Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943B] आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1620 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Educational Trust, Vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Tax, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. Central, Chennai -1 [Pan: Aamts 3888G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’’"ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी जगदीश, लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपील सं./ ITA Nos.1618 & 1619 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-2021) St. Joseph’s Institute of Science and Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Technology Trust, Tax, No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Central, Chennai -1 Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. [PAN: AAHTS 9943B] आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1620 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष"…

St.Joseph'S Institute of Science and Technology Trust, Chennai vs. PCIT Central Chennai - 1, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1619/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1618 & 1619 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Institute Of Science & Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Technology Trust, Tax, No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Central, Chennai -1 Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943B] आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1620 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Educational Trust, Vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Tax, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. Central, Chennai -1 [Pan: Aamts 3888G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’’"ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी जगदीश, लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपील सं./ ITA Nos.1618 & 1619 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-2021) St. Joseph’s Institute of Science and Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Technology Trust, Tax, No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Central, Chennai -1 Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. [PAN: AAHTS 9943B] आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1620 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष"…

St.Joseph'S Institute of Science and Technology Trust, Chennai vs. PCIT Central Chennai - 1, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1618/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

…2 ITA Nos.1618 to 1620/Chny/2024 St. Joseph's Educational Trust has filed an appeal for assessment year 2020-2021 against order dated 31.03.2024 of Id. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Chennai-1. Since the issues are common in all these appeals, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity we take up St. Joseph's Institute of Science and Technology Trust appeal in ITA No.1618/Chny/2024 for assessment year 2018-2019 as lead case. Our decision on this issue will equally apply to appeal Nos. 1619 & 1620/Chny/2024 for assessment years 2020-2021 also. 2. Sans…

Arihant Retail Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT-1, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1308/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1308/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Arihant Retail Private Limited, Principal Commissioner Of 29, Namachivaya Chetty Street, V. Income Tax -1, Old Washermanpet, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 021. [Pan: Aaics-3648-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 69C

…e Tax-1(1), Mumbai. (ITA/2360 of 201 7 dated 28.09.2018) iii) Sigma Research & Consulting (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income tax [2019] 103 taxmann.com 397. :-13-: ITA. No: 1308/Chny/2024 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. M.Chandra Sekhar (151 ITR 433) (SC) has held that the presumption that A.O. has considered the details filed by the assessee was "founded" on the principle that an officer entrusted with a judicial or quasi- judicial duty must be presumed to have discharged his duties in a proper and bonafide manner. This view is confirmed by the full bench decision of the Delhi high court in…

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

…eme Court observed that it had already been decided by it in Central Provisions (supra) that interest is levied by way of compensation and not by way of penalty. The Supreme Court also observed that a similar view had been taken in CIT v. Chandershekher: 151 ITR 433. 8. Mr Jolly submitted that the observations contained in Star India Pvt. Ltd (supra), which have been relied upon by the Tribunal, would not be applicable to the question of chargeability of interest under the Income Tax Act. He submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in Star India Pvt. Ltd (supra) was rendered in the context o…

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

…1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2150 OF 2012 M/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. ..APPELLANT(S) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR ..RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.2562/2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO.600/2013 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1522-23/2013 CIVIL APPEAL NO.599/2013 JUDGMENT K.M. JOSEPH, J. 1. A Bench of two judges doubted the correctness of the judgment rendered by a Bench of two learned judges of this Court in CCE v. SKF India Ltd. 2009 (13) SCC 461 (hereinafter referred to as Digitally signed by DEEPAK G…

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

…o. Ltd. vs. Ruttanji Ramji AIR 1938 PC 67 and Union of India vs. A.L. Rallia Ram (1964) 3 SCR 164 at 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), 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 compens…

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

…o. Ltd. vs. Ruttanji Ramji AIR 1938 PC 67 and Union of India vs. A.L. Rallia Ram (1964) 3 SCR 164 at 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 paym…