CIT v. Hyderabad Allwyn Metal Works Ltd.

172 ITR 113Reported decision1988#8816 most cited

What is CIT v. Hyderabad Allwyn Metal Works Ltd. authority for?

The nomenclature of a levy as 'interest', 'damages', or 'penalty' is not conclusive in determining its tax deductibility. The substance of the levy, rather than its name, dictates its allowability as a deduction.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 1993 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Hyderabad Allwyn Metal Works Ltd. · 172 ITR 113 · section 37(1) · interest on delayed payment · penalty · damages · tax deduction · nomenclature not conclusive · substance over form

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

Issues it is cited on

section 24asection 35esection 269uasection 75section 52interest under section 201(1a)section 32(1)(ii)commercial rightssection 192section 32(1)section 269enduring benefit

Judgments citing CIT v. Hyderabad Allwyn Metal Works Ltd.

Bharat Textiles and Proofing Industries Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Corp Ward 1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1621/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1621/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Bharat Textiles & Proofing – The Ito, Industries Ltd., Corporate Ward-1(2), New No.64, Old No.43, Chennai. Sattana Naicken Street, Choolai, Chennai-600 112. [Pan: Aaacb 2540 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi, Addl.CIT
Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी अिमताभ शु"ा, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1621/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 v. M/s.Bharat Textiles & Proofing – The ITO, Industries Ltd., Corporate Ward-1(2), New No.64, Old No.43, Chennai. Sattana Naicken Street, Choolai, Chennai-600 112. [PAN: AAACB 2540 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क"…

M/S Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2139/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

…/ excise law, it cannot be the intent of the legislature to levy a penalty for under section 75 as well. 18.1 He placed reliance on following judgements: (a) Division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Hyderabad Allwyn Metal Works Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 113 ITA Nos.2135 to 2139/Bang/2018 M/s. Karnataka EMTA Coal Mines Ltd., Bangalore Page 49 of 55 (b) Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 201 TTS 684 (SC). (c) DCIT v. Messee Duysseldorf India (P) Ltd. (2010) 129 TTJ 81 T (Del.). (d) Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Prem Nath Motors (Pvt.) Ltd. on 5 September. 2001 Equivalent citations: 2002 2…

M/S Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2138/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

…/ excise law, it cannot be the intent of the legislature to levy a penalty for under section 75 as well. 18.1 He placed reliance on following judgements: (a) Division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Hyderabad Allwyn Metal Works Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 113 ITA Nos.2135 to 2139/Bang/2018 M/s. Karnataka EMTA Coal Mines Ltd., Bangalore Page 49 of 55 (b) Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 201 TTS 684 (SC). (c) DCIT v. Messee Duysseldorf India (P) Ltd. (2010) 129 TTJ 81 T (Del.). (d) Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Prem Nath Motors (Pvt.) Ltd. on 5 September. 2001 Equivalent citations: 2002 2…

M/S Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2137/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

…/ excise law, it cannot be the intent of the legislature to levy a penalty for under section 75 as well. 18.1 He placed reliance on following judgements: (a) Division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Hyderabad Allwyn Metal Works Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 113 ITA Nos.2135 to 2139/Bang/2018 M/s. Karnataka EMTA Coal Mines Ltd., Bangalore Page 49 of 55 (b) Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 201 TTS 684 (SC). (c) DCIT v. Messee Duysseldorf India (P) Ltd. (2010) 129 TTJ 81 T (Del.). (d) Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Prem Nath Motors (Pvt.) Ltd. on 5 September. 2001 Equivalent citations: 2002 2…

M/S Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2136/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

…/ excise law, it cannot be the intent of the legislature to levy a penalty for under section 75 as well. 18.1 He placed reliance on following judgements: (a) Division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Hyderabad Allwyn Metal Works Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 113 ITA Nos.2135 to 2139/Bang/2018 M/s. Karnataka EMTA Coal Mines Ltd., Bangalore Page 49 of 55 (b) Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 201 TTS 684 (SC). (c) DCIT v. Messee Duysseldorf India (P) Ltd. (2010) 129 TTJ 81 T (Del.). (d) Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Prem Nath Motors (Pvt.) Ltd. on 5 September. 2001 Equivalent citations: 2002 2…

M/S Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2135/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

…/ excise law, it cannot be the intent of the legislature to levy a penalty for under section 75 as well. 18.1 He placed reliance on following judgements: (a) Division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Hyderabad Allwyn Metal Works Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 113 ITA Nos.2135 to 2139/Bang/2018 M/s. Karnataka EMTA Coal Mines Ltd., Bangalore Page 49 of 55 (b) Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 201 TTS 684 (SC). (c) DCIT v. Messee Duysseldorf India (P) Ltd. (2010) 129 TTJ 81 T (Del.). (d) Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Prem Nath Motors (Pvt.) Ltd. on 5 September. 2001 Equivalent citations: 2002 2…

M/S. Triune Energy Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 95/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. Sh. Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 2(22)(e)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.K.PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.95/Del./2017, A.Y. 2012-13 M/s. Triune Energy P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, B-1/H-4, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Circle-25(2) Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAKCS1045E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. Sh. Lalit Mohan, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 27.11.2019 Date of Order : 17.12.2019 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The appellant M/s. Triune Energy P. Ltd., New Delhi (hereinafter refer…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Mylan Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 12/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Respondent: Sh. YVST Sai, D.R
Section 251Section 28Section 32Section 32(1)Section 37(1)Section 43(1)Section 68

…(SC) ; Standard Batteries Ltd. v. err, (J995) 211 ITR 444, 446(SC) ; Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. err. (1998) 233 ITR 199, 202(SC) ; CIT v. Bharat Television Pvt. Ltd_, (1996) 218 ITR 173, 175, J 78(AP) ; CIT v , Hyderabad Allwyn Metal Works Ltd., (1988) 172 ITR 113. 121 (AP) . 10. In view of the above, the above, the amount of GBP 11.8 million payable by Mylan, being the same amount received from Servier under Article 23(2) of the EU Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003, which is called fine is nothing but compensatory doesn't fall within Explanation 1 to Section 37( 1) and should be allowed as deduction from Income.…

Mylan Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2335/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Respondent: Sh. YVST Sai, D.R
Section 251Section 28Section 32Section 32(1)Section 37(1)Section 43(1)Section 68

…(SC) ; Standard Batteries Ltd. v. err, (J995) 211 ITR 444, 446(SC) ; Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. err. (1998) 233 ITR 199, 202(SC) ; CIT v. Bharat Television Pvt. Ltd_, (1996) 218 ITR 173, 175, J 78(AP) ; CIT v , Hyderabad Allwyn Metal Works Ltd., (1988) 172 ITR 113. 121 (AP) . 10. In view of the above, the above, the amount of GBP 11.8 million payable by Mylan, being the same amount received from Servier under Article 23(2) of the EU Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003, which is called fine is nothing but compensatory doesn't fall within Explanation 1 to Section 37( 1) and should be allowed as deduction from Income.…

DCIT, Central Circle - 1(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Hindustan Urban Infrastructure Ltd.(Hindustan Vidyut Product Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1616/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 246ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40ASection 9(1)(vii)

…ash Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 201 ITR 684 has held, inter alia,- “… The decision of this court in Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. (1980) 123 ITR 429 and the decision of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Hyderabad Alwyn Metal Works Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 113 with the views of which we are in complete agreement, are, in our opinion, decisions which settle the law on the question as to when an amount paid by an assessee as interest or damages or penalty could be regarded as compensatory (repatory) in character as would entitle such assessee to claim it as an allowable expenditure under section 37(1) of…

DCIT, Central Circle - 1(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Hindustan Urban Infrastructure Ltd.(Hindustan Vidyut Product Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1615/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 246ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40ASection 9(1)(vii)

…ash Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 201 ITR 684 has held, inter alia,- “… The decision of this court in Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. (1980) 123 ITR 429 and the decision of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Hyderabad Alwyn Metal Works Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 113 with the views of which we are in complete agreement, are, in our opinion, decisions which settle the law on the question as to when an amount paid by an assessee as interest or damages or penalty could be regarded as compensatory (repatory) in character as would entitle such assessee to claim it as an allowable expenditure under section 37(1) of…

Prakash Cotton Mills Private Limited vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central)

In the result, we allow that appeal partly and remit the

C.A. No.-001279-001279 - 1977Supreme Court06 Apr 1993
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) BOMBAY
Section 256Section 37Section 37(1)Section 37(2)

…re of the levy as interest, damages or penalty is not conclusive. [991-B, 990-H, 991-A] Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi, [1980] 123 I.T.R. 429 S.C.; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hyderabad Allwyn Metal Works Ltd., (1988) 172 ITR 113 (H.CA.P.) and Organo Chemical Industries v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1803. This Court, remitted the matter of the Tribunal concerned, so far as it related to deduction under section 37(1) of I.T. Act, regarding impost of interest for delayed payment of sales tax and impost of damages for delayed contribution under Employees Stat…