CIT v. India Pistons Ltd.

250 ITR 279High Court2001#13851 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 195Section 37(1)Section 40(a)(i)Section 43B(f)Section 68Section 69CSection 1962

Issues it is cited on

section 5(2)(b)section 10(2)(xv)section 43b(f)section 145(1)section 46section 9(1)(i)section 5(2)income tax settlement commissionbusiness connectionsection 48section 40(a)(i)section 194c

Judgments citing CIT v. India Pistons Ltd.

DCIT, Central Circle 2, Rajkot vs. Aditya Birla Global Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Swiss Singapore India Pvt. Ltd., Gandhidham

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

ITA 353/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37(1)Section 40

…stoms Act, 1961 and the Notification issued by the Government, the word used is Charge for late filing of bill of entry (BOE) and not "penalty". The Id CIT(A) also relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. India Pistons Ltd. (250 ITR 279), wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that interest paid for delayed remittance of customs duty is compensatory in nature and hence allowable as business expenditure. The Id. CIT(A) therefore, held that the same is compensatory in nature hence is allowable u/s.37 of the Act. 11. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Rajkot vs. Aditya Birla Global Trading(India) Pvt.Ltd. (Swiss Singapore India Pvt. Ltd.), Gandhidham

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

ITA 284/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37(1)Section 40

…stoms Act, 1961 and the Notification issued by the Government, the word used is Charge for late filing of bill of entry (BOE) and not "penalty". The Id CIT(A) also relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. India Pistons Ltd. (250 ITR 279), wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that interest paid for delayed remittance of customs duty is compensatory in nature and hence allowable as business expenditure. The Id. CIT(A) therefore, held that the same is compensatory in nature hence is allowable u/s.37 of the Act. 11. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal…

Aditya Birla Global Trading (India) Private Limited, Gujarat vs. DCIT-ACIT Cent-2 RKT, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

ITA 226/RJT/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Feb 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37(1)Section 40

…stoms Act, 1961 and the Notification issued by the Government, the word used is Charge for late filing of bill of entry (BOE) and not "penalty". The Id CIT(A) also relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. India Pistons Ltd. (250 ITR 279), wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that interest paid for delayed remittance of customs duty is compensatory in nature and hence allowable as business expenditure. The Id. CIT(A) therefore, held that the same is compensatory in nature hence is allowable u/s.37 of the Act. 11. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal…

Aditya Birla Global Trading (India) Private Limited, Gujarat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Gandhihdam, Gandhidham, Gujarat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

ITA 225/RJT/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Feb 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37(1)Section 40

…stoms Act, 1961 and the Notification issued by the Government, the word used is Charge for late filing of bill of entry (BOE) and not "penalty". The Id CIT(A) also relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. India Pistons Ltd. (250 ITR 279), wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that interest paid for delayed remittance of customs duty is compensatory in nature and hence allowable as business expenditure. The Id. CIT(A) therefore, held that the same is compensatory in nature hence is allowable u/s.37 of the Act. 11. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal…

ACIT, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai vs. Taqa Neyveli Power Company Power P Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 150/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Vijaya Prabha, JCIT
Section 11ASection 37Section 37(1)

…ssue of interest levied for failure to pay advance tax under the Income Tax Act. The issue, in the assessee’s case is in connection with indirect tax. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs India Pistons Ltd., 250 ITR 279 (Mad) held that the interest paid for delayed payments of custom duty is allowable and hence pleaded that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) may be upheld. :-4-: 5. We considered the rival submissions and find merit in the submissions of the Ld. AR. It is clear from the orders of the lower authorities that the impugned interest was not in conn…

M.J. Exports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T.3(2), Mumbai

ITA 4874/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaita Nos.4874 & 4937/Mum/2012 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S M.J. Exports Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-3(2), C/O- H.N. Motiwalla & Co. Mumbai बनाम/ 508 Sharda Chambers, Vs. 33, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue ) Pan. No.Aadcm7712M

Section 158A(1)Section 269USection 37Section 43B

…tallized in A Y 2007-08 and demand was raised on 18.09.2006. Our attention was invited to a certificate from Canara Bank dated 20.09.1997 by claiming that either the same can be allowed u/s. 37 of the Act for which reliance was placed upon the decision in 250 ITR 279 (Madras) or alternatively u/s. 43B for which reliance was placed in 203 ITR 375 (Cal.); 77 Taxman 628 (Cal). On the other hand, the learned DR defended the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts in brief are that M/s M.J. Exports Pvt. Ltd.…

T & T Motors Ltd

ITA/899/2010HC Delhi24 Jan 2012
Section 115WSection 260A

…terms either directly to the customer, or through its wholesale and other dealers to whom, under the terms of trade discounts and commissions are allowed, cannot be regarded as sales promotion. This court in the case of CIT v. India Pistons Ltd. [2001] 250 ITR 279 has held that sale of a product at a discount did not amount to a sales promotion expense. It was observed in that judgment that: “The sales promotion normally refers to an activity which is intended to promote the sale of all the products by way of advertisement or special campaigns. Offering a discount on the price in effect is only an…