CIT v. Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd.

239 ITR 435High Court1999#1476 most cited

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.

77

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd. · Section 201(1A) · Section 37(1) · interest on delayed TDS · disallowance of interest · business expenditure deduction · compensatory payment · nature of levy · direct tax

Also reported as

105 Taxmann 346

Sections most often in play

Section 37(1)Section 201(1A)Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 69CSection 143(2)Section 144Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 215section 256(1)interest under section 201(1a)section 256section 201(1a)section 40(a)(ii)section 201eligible businessdisallowance of interest expendituresection 21section 37(1)section 220

Judgments citing CIT v. Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd.

M/S Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-12, Bangalore

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

ITA 1980/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

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 Dell International Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 932/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.844/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Joint Vs. M/S.Dell International Services India Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), No.12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Divyashree Gardens, Challagutta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.932/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Dell International Services Vs. The Joint Commissioner India Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2022

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri
Section 143(2)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.844/Bang/2017 Assessment year : 2012-13 The Joint Vs. M/s.Dell International Services India Commissioner of Private Limited, Income Tax, LTU, (for the merged entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), No.12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Divyashree Gardens, Challagutta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 071. PAN : AAACH1925Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No.932/Bang/2017 Assessment year : 2012-13 M/s.Dell International Services Vs. The Joint Commissioner India Private L…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Dell International Services India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 844/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.844/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Joint Vs. M/S.Dell International Services India Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), No.12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Divyashree Gardens, Challagutta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.932/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Dell International Services Vs. The Joint Commissioner India Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2022

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri
Section 143(2)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.844/Bang/2017 Assessment year : 2012-13 The Joint Vs. M/s.Dell International Services India Commissioner of Private Limited, Income Tax, LTU, (for the merged entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), No.12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Divyashree Gardens, Challagutta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 071. PAN : AAACH1925Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No.932/Bang/2017 Assessment year : 2012-13 M/s.Dell International Services Vs. The Joint Commissioner India Private L…

M/S. Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore - 4, Bangalore

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

ITA 397/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2015-16
For Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/s. Karnataka State Beverages Corporation The Principal Ltd., Commissioner of 4th Floor, TTMC Income Tax, Building, “A” Block, Bangalore – 4, BMTC , Shanthinagar, Vs. Bangalore. Bengaluru – 560 027. PAN: AACCK1421A APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri Narendra Sharma, Assessee by Advocate Revenue by : Smt. S. Praveena, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Enzen Global Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 2550/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 45

…appeal. In so far as the nature on the interest on delayed remittance of TDS is concerned, this Tribunal has been taking a consistent view following the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd., 239 ITR 435 that interest paid takes colour from the nature of principal amount required to be paid but not paid in time and this principal amount being income tax, interest was also in the nature of direct tax and cannot be regarded as a compensatory payment and allowed as business expenditure. Following the aforesaid decision, this Tribunal in the case of…

M/S. Enzen Global Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(1)(4), Banglaoore

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

ITA 2332/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 45

…appeal. In so far as the nature on the interest on delayed remittance of TDS is concerned, this Tribunal has been taking a consistent view following the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd., 239 ITR 435 that interest paid takes colour from the nature of principal amount required to be paid but not paid in time and this principal amount being income tax, interest was also in the nature of direct tax and cannot be regarded as a compensatory payment and allowed as business expenditure. Following the aforesaid decision, this Tribunal in the case of…

Grundfos Pumps India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 39/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Palanikumar (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…est paid for Rs.19.48 Lacs for delayed remittance of Tax Deduction at source. The same was denied by Ld. AO. The Ld. DRP confirmed the same by relying on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT V/s Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd. (239 ITR 435) wherein it was held that the amount of TDS was not an amount of expenditure. The amount not deducted and remitted has the character of tax and has to be remitted to the state and could not be utilized by the assessee for its own business. Therefore, the interest so paid would not be business expenditure for the assessee. Since Ld. DRP has follow…

Grundfos Pumps India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 3088/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Palanikumar (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…est paid for Rs.19.48 Lacs for delayed remittance of Tax Deduction at source. The same was denied by Ld. AO. The Ld. DRP confirmed the same by relying on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT V/s Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd. (239 ITR 435) wherein it was held that the amount of TDS was not an amount of expenditure. The amount not deducted and remitted has the character of tax and has to be remitted to the state and could not be utilized by the assessee for its own business. Therefore, the interest so paid would not be business expenditure for the assessee. Since Ld. DRP has follow…

Expat Engineering India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 503/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 43B

…of the Act. 10. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) relying on the decision of the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of New Modern Bazaar v. ITO in ITA No.590/Del/2018 dated 8.4.2021 and the Madras High Court judgment in CIT v. Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd. (1999) 239 ITR 435 (Mad) as well as Bangalore Tribunal decision in the case of Velankani Information Systems Ltd. v. DCIT [2018] 97 taxmann.com 599 held that interest on late payment of TDS is not eligible business SP No.31/Bang/2022 & ITA No.503/Bang/2022 Page 7 of 23 expenditure and confirmed the order of the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.…

Universal Energies Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2761/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. K. A. Manu, Sr. DR
Section 2Section 201Section 30Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40

…or the purpose of business and further it is a payment, which is in the form of tax so it is not an allowable expenditure. The ITAT dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 13. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs. Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd. (1999) 239 ITR 435 (Mad.) has held that interest under section 201(1A) paid by the assessee does not assume the character of business expenditure and also cannot be regarded as compensatory payment. 14. This decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court has also been followed by various benches of ITAT, specifically in Velankani Information Systems Limited Vs. DCIT [2018]…

M/S Bhopal Dugdh Sangh Sahakari My.Dairy Plant, Bhopal vs. DCIT -1 (1), Bhopal

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

ITA 128/IND/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patva, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Amit Soni, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

…ITA No.128/Ind/2020 A.Y. 2012-13 Page 1 of 15 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Bhopal Dugdh Sangh DCIT, 1(1) Sahakari Maryadit, Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) P.A. No. AAAAB 0221 D Appellant by : Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patva, ARs Respondent by : Shri Amit Soni, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 05.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement 28.06.2022 O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: 1. This appeal filed by the assessee is…

Times Internet Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1061/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)

…x of Rs.2,000/- and interest on late deposit of service tax of Rs.1,38,551/-. 6 Times Internet Ltd. 9. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Chennai High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. 239 ITR 435 (Mad.) (1998). 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court observations in this regard in the case of Lachmandas Mathura Vs. CIT reported in 254 ITR 799 are as follows: “The High Court has proceeded on the basis that the interest on arrears of sales tax is penal in nature and has rejected the contention of the assessee that it is compensatory in nature. In taking…

Welkin Telecom Infra Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.11(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 12/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rjesh Kumar, Am ]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69C

…vice tax and professional tax. The Ld. CIT(A) however upheld the disallowance of interest paid on delayed payment of TDS by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Chennai Properties and Investment Ltd reported in (1999) 239 ITR 435. Aggrieved by this action, the assessee is now in appeal before us. 38. We have heard both the parties and perused the judicial precedents available on this subject. The question before us is, whether the interest paid on non-deduction of TDS/late payment of TDS can be claimed as expenditure for determining the taxable income. The Ld. AR of the…

M/S Resoive & Fire India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 841/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 201Section 206C(7)Section 215Section 220(2)

…e fresh claim made by the assessee considering the same as legal in nature; however, disallowed the same on merits relying upon the decision of Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd vs CIT (1992)196 ITR 406 (Bom) and CIT vs Chennai Properties and Investment Ltd (1999) 239 ITR 435 (Mad). Further aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us. 3. The Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the issue involved in this case is that the assessee has paid interest on late payment of TDS. He submitted that the amount of tax deduction at source represents the amount of income-tax of the third parties on whose behalf the payment was dedu…

Rukmani Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 358/CTK/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.358/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Rukmani Infra Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Plot No.251, District Centre, C.S.Pur, Bhubaneswar-16 Pan No. : Aaecr 1585 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Has Been Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 16.06.2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Extracted From The Available Records Are That, The Assessee, A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Engaged In The Business Of Erection, Commissioning, Technical & Maintenance Service To Different Power Plants. The Return Of Income For The Ay 2013-14 Was Filed By The Assessee On 01.10.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,65,91,030/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected Under Cass. Notice U/S 143(2) & 143(1) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. Assessment Proceedings Were Completed By The Ao & Concluded With An Addition Of Rs.3,58,95,574/- Under Four Different

For Appellant: None
Section 143(2)Section 68

…ide the issue in favour of assessee. Thus, the ground No.4 is allowed. Ground 5 – Interest on Late Deposit of TDS for Rs. 21,64,220/- 10. Ld DR, relied on the following case laws with respect to this ground: i) Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Chennai Properties 239 ITR 435 . Relevant para 13 and 14 of the said order are as under: 13. Learned counsel for the Revenue also referred to the decisions of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 406 and the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Martin and Harris Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 73 Taxman 555. It was held…

Refex Industries Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 5(3), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 2939/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (CA) – Ld ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Palani Kumar, Ld. CIT - DR
Section 143(3)Section 32

…bserving that interest on TDS was akin to Income Tax Payment. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. We find that this issue stood against the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in CIT V/s Chennai Properties & Inv. Ltd. (239 ITR 435) wherein it was held that interest takes color from nature of principal amount required to be paid but not paid in time and this principal amount being income-tax, interest is in nature of a direct tax and settlement of income-tax payable under Act and, therefore, same cannot be regarded as compensatory payment. Therefore, the same could not be a…

Refex Industries Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 5(3), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 2938/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (CA) – Ld ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Palani Kumar, Ld. CIT - DR
Section 143(3)Section 32

…bserving that interest on TDS was akin to Income Tax Payment. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. We find that this issue stood against the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in CIT V/s Chennai Properties & Inv. Ltd. (239 ITR 435) wherein it was held that interest takes color from nature of principal amount required to be paid but not paid in time and this principal amount being income-tax, interest is in nature of a direct tax and settlement of income-tax payable under Act and, therefore, same cannot be regarded as compensatory payment. Therefore, the same could not be a…

M/S. Tuv Rheinland Nife Academy Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2633/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Kavitha Paramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain &
Section 170Section 201Section 32(1)Section 40Section 47

…evant observations made by Delhi bench of Tribunal in the above said case:- “7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. The above issue has already been considered by Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs. Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd. (1999) 239 ITR 435 (Mad.) wherein it has been held that interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act paid by the assessee does not assume the character of business expenditure and also cannot be regarded as compensatory payment. The above decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court has also been dealt with exclusively by the various benches of the ITAT , specifically in…

M/S Jindal Aluminium Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2013-2014 and 2015-2016 are allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-2015...

ITA 33/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Smt.K.Soumya, AdvocateFor Respondent: SmtH.Kabila, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 244ASection 80I

…in the case of Bharat Commerce & Industry v CIT (1998) 230 ITR 733 held that interest for late payment of direct taxes is not deductible. Similar decision was rendered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd 239 ITR 435. Therefore, Rs.24,644 is added back to the total income of the assessee.” 5.1 The view taken by the Assessing Officer was confirmed by the CIT(A). 7 ITA Nos.31-33/Bang/2019. M/s.Jindal Aluminium Limited. 5.2 Aggrieved, the assessee has raised this issue before the Tribunal. 5.3 We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record.…

M/S Jindal Aluminium Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2013-2014 and 2015-2016 are allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-2015...

ITA 32/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Smt.K.Soumya, AdvocateFor Respondent: SmtH.Kabila, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 244ASection 80I

…in the case of Bharat Commerce & Industry v CIT (1998) 230 ITR 733 held that interest for late payment of direct taxes is not deductible. Similar decision was rendered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd 239 ITR 435. Therefore, Rs.24,644 is added back to the total income of the assessee.” 5.1 The view taken by the Assessing Officer was confirmed by the CIT(A). 7 ITA Nos.31-33/Bang/2019. M/s.Jindal Aluminium Limited. 5.2 Aggrieved, the assessee has raised this issue before the Tribunal. 5.3 We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record.…