What is CIT v. Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd. authority for?

Interest paid under section 201(1A) for delay in remitting tax deducted at source is not an allowable business expenditure and cannot be regarded as a compensatory payment. This interest takes its character from the nature of the tax levy, being a direct tax itself.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd.?

77 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd. (239 ITR 435), spanning 2017 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 37(1), Section 201(1A), Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 69C, Section 143(2).

CIT v. Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd. (239 ITR 435)

M/S.G.S. Atwal & Co.(Engg)(P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1009/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 36(1)(va)

…o Rs.1,80,495/-. The Ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Martin & Harris Private Limited Vs. CIT and also the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd. (1991) 239 ITR 435 (Madras) has dismissed these grounds of appeal of the assessee. 6. At the time of the hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made before the lower authorities that the assessee had paid interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,90,495/- for delayed payment of TDS before filing ofthe income tax re…

M/S.G.S. Atwal & Co.(Engg) (P)Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1008/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 36(1)(va)

…o Rs.1,80,495/-. The Ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Martin & Harris Private Limited Vs. CIT and also the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd. (1991) 239 ITR 435 (Madras) has dismissed these grounds of appeal of the assessee. 6. At the time of the hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made before the lower authorities that the assessee had paid interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,90,495/- for delayed payment of TDS before filing ofthe income tax re…

The DCIT Circle 5(1), Bhopal vs. M/S L N Malviya Infra Projects P Ltd, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 189/IND/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Jan 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit, Circle 5(1) M/S. L.N. Malviya Infra Projects Bhopal Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.29, F/F Sector, Dwarka Vs. New Delhi

Section 234ASection 3(3)Section 37(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT, Circle 5(1) M/s. L.N. Malviya Infra Projects Bhopal Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.29, F/F Sector, Dwarka Vs. New Delhi (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AACCL 1320 Assessee by Shri Kirti Kumar Daga, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 04.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement 09.01.2024 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 22.03.2023 of Commissioner o…

Jt.CIT (OSD), Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Delhivery P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.1734/Del/2023 is partly allowed and ITA

ITA 1735/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. C.N. Prasad

Section 263Section 37(1)

…is not a business expenditure. In this regard, it is worthwhile to mention following judicial pronouncements. (SC)” - Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (1988 -Aruna Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1957) 31 ITR 153 (Bom) -CIT vs. Chennai Properties and Ors. (1999) 239 ITR 435 (Mad.) ) 230 ITR 733 26. In view of the facts narrated above, we find that the AO has failed to disallow above mentioned interest expenditure while passing the order u/s 143(3) and hence rendering the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The order of the Id. PCIT u/s 263 is upheld on this issue.” 11. For similar reason…

Jt.CIT (OSD), Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Delhivery P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.1734/Del/2023 is partly allowed and ITA

ITA 1734/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. C.N. Prasad

Section 263Section 37(1)

…is not a business expenditure. In this regard, it is worthwhile to mention following judicial pronouncements. (SC)” - Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (1988 -Aruna Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1957) 31 ITR 153 (Bom) -CIT vs. Chennai Properties and Ors. (1999) 239 ITR 435 (Mad.) ) 230 ITR 733 26. In view of the facts narrated above, we find that the AO has failed to disallow above mentioned interest expenditure while passing the order u/s 143(3) and hence rendering the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The order of the Id. PCIT u/s 263 is upheld on this issue.” 11. For similar reason…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax(OSD), Cricle -1, Kolhapur vs. Rbl Bank Ltd., Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 510/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: S/Shri Ravi Sawana & Dinesh KukrejaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari

Section 143(3)Section 201Section 251

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.499/PUN/2023 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 RBL Bank Limited, 179-E, Shree Shahu Market Yard, Kolhapur – 416005 PAN : AABCT3335M ......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. DCIT, Circle – 1, Kolhapur ……प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.509 & 510/PUN/2023 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle – 1, Kolhapur ......अपीलार्थी / A…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax(OSD), Cricle -1, Kolhapur vs. Rbl Bank Ltd., Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 509/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: S/Shri Ravi Sawana & Dinesh KukrejaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari

Section 143(3)Section 201Section 251

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.499/PUN/2023 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 RBL Bank Limited, 179-E, Shree Shahu Market Yard, Kolhapur – 416005 PAN : AABCT3335M ......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. DCIT, Circle – 1, Kolhapur ……प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.509 & 510/PUN/2023 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle – 1, Kolhapur ......अपीलार्थी / A…

Rbl Bank, Kolhapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 499/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: S/Shri Ravi Sawana & Dinesh KukrejaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari

Section 143(3)Section 201Section 251

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.499/PUN/2023 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 RBL Bank Limited, 179-E, Shree Shahu Market Yard, Kolhapur – 416005 PAN : AABCT3335M ......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. DCIT, Circle – 1, Kolhapur ……प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.509 & 510/PUN/2023 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle – 1, Kolhapur ......अपीलार्थी / A…

DCIT-5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jsw Investments Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1088/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1085 & 1086/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) Jsw Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit-5(2)(1) Jsw Centre, Bandra 21, 3Rd Floor, Mittal Kurla Complex, Court, 22, Bandra (East), Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajcs2498G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Lieder Panicker

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…al before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee after referring the decision of ITAT benches. 17. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has not considered the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chennai Properties 239 ITR 435. After hearing both the sides we restore this issue to the file of the assessing officer for deciding afresh after considering the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chennai Properties 239 ITR 435 wherein held that such deduction is not permissible under section 37 of the Act. Therefore, ground no 4 is allowed for statis…

DCIT-5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jsw Investments Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1087/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1085 & 1086/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) Jsw Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit-5(2)(1) Jsw Centre, Bandra 21, 3Rd Floor, Mittal Kurla Complex, Court, 22, Bandra (East), Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajcs2498G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Lieder Panicker

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…al before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee after referring the decision of ITAT benches. 17. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has not considered the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chennai Properties 239 ITR 435. After hearing both the sides we restore this issue to the file of the assessing officer for deciding afresh after considering the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chennai Properties 239 ITR 435 wherein held that such deduction is not permissible under section 37 of the Act. Therefore, ground no 4 is allowed for statis…

Jsw Investments Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-10, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1086/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1085 & 1086/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) Jsw Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit-5(2)(1) Jsw Centre, Bandra 21, 3Rd Floor, Mittal Kurla Complex, Court, 22, Bandra (East), Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajcs2498G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Lieder Panicker

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…al before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee after referring the decision of ITAT benches. 17. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has not considered the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chennai Properties 239 ITR 435. After hearing both the sides we restore this issue to the file of the assessing officer for deciding afresh after considering the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chennai Properties 239 ITR 435 wherein held that such deduction is not permissible under section 37 of the Act. Therefore, ground no 4 is allowed for statis…

Jsw Investments Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT, (A)-10, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1085/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1085 & 1086/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) Jsw Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit-5(2)(1) Jsw Centre, Bandra 21, 3Rd Floor, Mittal Kurla Complex, Court, 22, Bandra (East), Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajcs2498G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Lieder Panicker

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…al before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee after referring the decision of ITAT benches. 17. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has not considered the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chennai Properties 239 ITR 435. After hearing both the sides we restore this issue to the file of the assessing officer for deciding afresh after considering the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chennai Properties 239 ITR 435 wherein held that such deduction is not permissible under section 37 of the Act. Therefore, ground no 4 is allowed for statis…

Viraj Profiles Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 775/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

…ircumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A)is justified in deleting the disallowance of interest expenditure on late payment of TDS without following the judgment of Honorable Madras High Court in the case of Chennai properties and Investments Limited, 239 ITR 435, on identical situations. 13. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) is justified in deleting the disallowance of loss of Marked to Market ignoring the fact that the assessee has not made any sale/ conclusion / settlement of the contract in the year under consideration and the relief allowed by the Ld CIT(A) is…

Expat Engineering India Limited, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1139/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ravishankar S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 250Section 37

…the total income of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd. reported in (1999) 239 ITR 435 (Mad.) and the order of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of New Modern Bazaar v. ITO in ITA No.590/Del/2018 (order dated 08.04.2021) decided the issue against the assessee and dismissed the appeal. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a paper book comprising of 85 pages en…

Delhi Cargo Service Center, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9833/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, EmployeeFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT,DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(2)Section 271Section 37(1)Section 43B

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Delhi Cargo Service Center, Vs. ACIT, Cargo Terminal 2, Gate No. 6, Circle-7(1), Air Cargo Complex, New Delhi. Indra Gandhi Int. Airport, New Delhi – 110 037. PAN AADCD2748N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, Employee Department by : Shri T. James Singson, CIT,DR Date of Hearing : 16.03.2023 Date of 24.03.2023 pronouncement : O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of th…

Delhivery Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1036/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1036/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Delhivery Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pr. Cit-3, Plot No. 5, Sector-44, Central Revenue Building, Gurugram, Haryana-122002 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aapcs9575E Assessee By : Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Sh. M. Baranwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.03.2023

For Appellant: Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 201Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

…ss expenditure. In this regard, it is worthwhile to mention following judicial pronouncements.  Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (1988) 230 ITR 733 (SC)  Aruna Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1957) 31 ITR 153 (Bom)  CIT vs. Chennai Properties and Ors. (1999) 239 ITR 435 (Mad.) 26. In view of the facts narrated above, we find that the AO has failed to disallow above mentioned interest expenditure while passing the order u/s 143(3) and hence rendering the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The order of the ld. PCIT u/s 263 is upheld on this issue. 27. In the result, the appeal of th…

M/S Premier Irrigation Adritec (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 387/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 2(24)Section 250Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…count ofthe Central Government. In holding this, I find solace and derive strengthfrom the decisions of various courts including Hon'ble Supreme Court asdiscussed below: 7.4 Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chennai Properties andInvestment Ltd. (1999) 239 ITR 435 (Mad.) has held the same issueagainst the assessee and disallowed the interest paid under section 201(1A) of the Act. It was held that it cannot assume the character ofbusiness expenditure and is not allowable as a deduction as the liability topay interest is directly related to the failure to deduct or remit the taxdeducted at source. In para 8…

M/S Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore

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

ITA 2835/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2835/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Dell International Services The Additional Commissioner India Private Limited Of Income-Tax (Ltu) V. Bangalore. Divyashree Greens, Sy.Nos.12/1, 12/2A & 13/1A,Challaghatta Village,Varthur Hobli Bengaluru – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.T.Suryanarayana, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Praveen Karanth, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2023 Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2023 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 30.11.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company, Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading In Computer Systems Including Support & Maintenance Services & Leasing Of Computers. For The Assessment Year 2013-2014, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2013 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.22,31,24,760. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Was Issued On 2 It(Tp)A No.2835/Bang/2017. M/S.Dell International Services India Private Limited. 11.09.2014. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Noticed That The International Transactions Entered By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) Had Exceeded The Prescribed Limit, Hence, The Matter Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The Said Transaction. The Tpo Passed Order U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act On 19.10.2016. In The Said Order, The Tpo Had Proposed Following Adjustments:-

For Appellant: Sri.T.Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Praveen Karanth, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 40Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…elevant finding of the Tribunal reads as follows:- "21. As far as delay in remittance of tax deducted at source u/s. 201(1A) of the Act is concerned, we find that the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd. (1999) 239 ITR 435 (Mad) has taken a view that interest paid u/s. 201(1A) is also in the nature of tax and notwithstanding the fact that it is not the tax liability of the assessee, the same cannot be allowed as a deduction. The following were the relevant observations of the Hon'ble Madras High Court:-- 56 IT(TP)A No.2835/Bang/2017. M/s.Dell International Service…

M/S Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1982/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R

Section 143(3)

…ITA Nos.1980 to 1982/Bang/2018 M/s. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1980 to 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/s. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Symphony Teleca Addl. CIT Corporation India Private Ltd.) Range-12 No.3 & 3A, EOIZ Industrial Area (currently with ACIT Survey No.85 & 86, Sadarmangala Vs. Circle-3(1)(2)) Village Bangalore Krishnarajapuram Hobli B…

M/S Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1981/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R

Section 143(3)

…ITA Nos.1980 to 1982/Bang/2018 M/s. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1980 to 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/s. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Symphony Teleca Addl. CIT Corporation India Private Ltd.) Range-12 No.3 & 3A, EOIZ Industrial Area (currently with ACIT Survey No.85 & 86, Sadarmangala Vs. Circle-3(1)(2)) Village Bangalore Krishnarajapuram Hobli B…

CIT v. Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd.

What is CIT v. Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd.

M/S.G.S. Atwal & Co.(Engg)(P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata

M/S.G.S. Atwal & Co.(Engg) (P)Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata

The DCIT Circle 5(1), Bhopal vs. M/S L N Malviya Infra Projects P Ltd, Bhopal

Jt.CIT (OSD), Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Delhivery P.Ltd, New Delhi

Jt.CIT (OSD), Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Delhivery P.Ltd, New Delhi

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax(OSD), Cricle -1, Kolhapur vs. Rbl Bank Ltd., Kolhapur

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax(OSD), Cricle -1, Kolhapur vs. Rbl Bank Ltd., Kolhapur

Rbl Bank, Kolhapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kolhapur

DCIT-5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jsw Investments Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

DCIT-5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jsw Investments Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

Jsw Investments Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-10, Mumbai

Jsw Investments Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT, (A)-10, Mumbai

Viraj Profiles Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-3(2), Mumbai

Expat Engineering India Limited, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Bengaluru

Delhi Cargo Service Center, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

Delhivery Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT-3, New Delhi

M/S Premier Irrigation Adritec (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata

M/S Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore

M/S Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

M/S Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore