What is CIT v. Kotak Mahendra Finance Ltd. authority for?

Interest levied under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income-tax Act is compensatory in nature, not penal. This interest is automatically imposed upon default in payment of advance tax.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Kotak Mahendra Finance Ltd.?

59 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Kotak Mahendra Finance Ltd. (265 ITR 119), spanning 2008 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Kotak Mahendra Finance Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 119(2), Section 209, Section 210, Section 234A, Section 234B, Section 234C.

CIT v. Kotak Mahendra Finance Ltd. (265 ITR 119)

M/s.V.R.Farms Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are dismissed

ITTA/272/2008HC Telangana28 Nov 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

…he circulars issued by the Board under section 119 of the Act. 12. Reliance was also placed by the learned counsel for the revenue on the Bombay High Court decision in CIT v. Kotak ITA Nos. 402/2005 & Others Page No.15 of 44 Mahindra Finance Ltd: 265 ITR 119 (Bom) for explaining the scope of sections 234B and 234C. The Bombay High Court observed that: ―Section 234B and section 234C fall under Chapter XVII of the Income-tax Act which deals with collection and recovery. Chapter XVII-F deals with interest chargeable in certain cases. Section 234B along with section 234A and section 234C were i…

K.N.KRISHNAMURTHY,MUMBAI vs. MUM-W-(251)(93), BENGALURU

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 5694/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) K.N. Krishnamurthy Ito 42(2)(3) I-15, Mahindra Park Mumbai. Narayan Nagar, Lbs Vs. Marg, Ghatkopar West Mumbai-400 086. Pan : Aaepk7294A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kiran UnavekarFor Respondent: Shri K.N. Krishamurthy

Section 234B

…provisions of section 234B and 234C, any other reason, or cause for deferment in payment of advance tax is immaterial. (CIT Vs. Salem Agricultural Producers Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd., 76 Taxman.com 225 (Mad). j) In Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd. case (265 ITR 119)(Bom), it was held that (para 7) interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C inserted w.e.f. 1.4.1989, are compensatory in nature and not penal. The levy is automatic once the appellant committed default. So, the appellant’s argument that appellant is penalised for asking him to pay interest for default is incorrect. k) In the case of Anjum Ghasw…

KN KRISHNAMURTHY,MUMBAI vs. MUM-W-(432)(93), BENGALURU

ITA 5609/MUM/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) K.N. Krishnamurthy Ito 42(2)(3) I-15, Mahindra Park Mumbai. Narayan Nagar, Lbs Vs. Marg, Ghatkopar West Mumbai-400 086. Pan : Aaepk7294A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hemanshu JoshiFor Respondent: Shri K.N. Krishamurthy

Section 234B

…provisions of section 234B and 234C, any other reason, or cause for deferment in payment of advance tax is immaterial. (CIT Vs. Salem Agricultural Producers Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd., 76 Taxman.com 225 (Mad). j) In Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd. case (265 ITR 119)(Bom), it was held that (para 7) interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C inserted w.e.f. 1.4.1989, are compensatory in nature and not penal. The levy is automatic once the appellant committed default. 7 K.N. Krishnamurthy k) In the case of Anjum Ghaswala (supra), Hon'ble Bombay High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that the words use…

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

…the learned counsel for the Revenue that the levy under Section 234B of the said Act is compensatory in nature and is not in the nature of penalty. We may also note the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Kotak Mahendra Finance Ltd: 265 ITR 119 (Bom), wherein the Bombay High Court observed that it was well settled that interest under Section 234B was compensatory in character and that it was not penal in nature. Another decision which would be relevant is of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr Prannoy Roy v. Commissioner of Income-tax and Another : 254 ITR 755 (Del.…

COLIN MARIO REBELLO,MUMBAI vs. ITO., WARD-23(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 423/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2021-22 Colin Mario Rebello, Ito, 501-502, Building-1, Ward-23(1)(1), Joanna Co-Operative Mumbai Vs. Society Ltd, Manuel Gonsalves Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaar5626F

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Punjabi, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Ram Prakash Rastogi, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 234A

…the learned counsel for the revenue that the levy under section 234B of the sai Act is compensatory in nature and is not in the nature of penalty. We may also note the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Kotak Mahendra Finance Ltd. [2004] 265 ITR 119. wherein the Bombay High Court observed that it was well-settled that interest under section 23 4B was compensatory in character and th; it was not penal in nature. Another decision which would be relevant is of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Pr annoy Roy v. CIT [2002] 254 ITR 755. In that case, the provisions of section 234A w…

SIDDHANT MACHINDRA MHASKE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(3), PUNE, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 318/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Pune02 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

Section 139(9)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234A

…t. 7. Mr. Jasnani on the other hand vehemently supported both the learned lower authorities action levying sec.234A interest in sec.154 rectification in light of CIT vs. Pranoy Roy & Anr. [2009] 309 ITR 231 (SC); CIT vs. Kotak Mahindra Finance Limited [2004] 265 ITR 119 (Bom.) and this tribunal’s recent adjudication in Dhirendra Narbheram Sheth vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(5), Rajkot [2023] 147 taxmann.com 150 (Rajkot). His case before us is that the assessee all along has not submitted even a single valid 9 ITA.No.318/PUN./2023 return and, therefore, sec.234A interest has been rightly charged by way of sec.154 rectifica…

SHRI DHIRENDRA NARBHERAM SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 2 (3) (5), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

ITA 181/RJT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 140ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 234B

…h the learned counsel for the revenue that the levy undersection234B of the said Act is compensatory in nature and is not in the nature of penalty. We may also note the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Kotak Mahendra Finance Ltd. [2004] 265 ITR 119, wherein the Bombay High Court observed that it was well-settled that interestundersection234B was compensatory in character and that it was not penal in nature. Another decision which would be relevant is of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Prannoy Roy v. CIT [2002] 254 ITR 755. In that case, the provisions of section234A were i…

AIR INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4467/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4467, 4518 & 4544/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal.ARFor Respondent: Smt Sailaja Rai, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 44A

…assessee to the revenue for delayed payment of its dues. The said proposition is clearly borne out of the following judicial pronouncements: - No. Case Title Judicial Cittion Authority 1 Anjum MH Ghaswala Hon’ble SC 252 ITR 1 and Ors 2 CIT Vs. Kotal Hon’ble 265 ITR 119 Mahindra Fin Ltd Bombay HC 3 Raju Bhojwani Vs Hon’ble 13 Taxman CIT Delhi HC 221 4 CIT Vs Anand Hon’ble 316 ITR 141 Prakash Delhi HC 4.2 Proceedings further, the submissions of Ld. AR that the disallowance could not be made u/s 40(a)(ii) since the expression tax did not include interest, is also tenable in view of the following judicial pronounc…

AIR INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4544/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4467, 4518 & 4544/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal.ARFor Respondent: Smt Sailaja Rai, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 44A

…assessee to the revenue for delayed payment of its dues. The said proposition is clearly borne out of the following judicial pronouncements: - No. Case Title Judicial Cittion Authority 1 Anjum MH Ghaswala Hon’ble SC 252 ITR 1 and Ors 2 CIT Vs. Kotal Hon’ble 265 ITR 119 Mahindra Fin Ltd Bombay HC 3 Raju Bhojwani Vs Hon’ble 13 Taxman CIT Delhi HC 221 4 CIT Vs Anand Hon’ble 316 ITR 141 Prakash Delhi HC 4.2 Proceedings further, the submissions of Ld. AR that the disallowance could not be made u/s 40(a)(ii) since the expression tax did not include interest, is also tenable in view of the following judicial pronounc…

AIR INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4518/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4467, 4518 & 4544/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal.ARFor Respondent: Smt Sailaja Rai, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 44A

…assessee to the revenue for delayed payment of its dues. The said proposition is clearly borne out of the following judicial pronouncements: - No. Case Title Judicial Cittion Authority 1 Anjum MH Ghaswala Hon’ble SC 252 ITR 1 and Ors 2 CIT Vs. Kotal Hon’ble 265 ITR 119 Mahindra Fin Ltd Bombay HC 3 Raju Bhojwani Vs Hon’ble 13 Taxman CIT Delhi HC 221 4 CIT Vs Anand Hon’ble 316 ITR 141 Prakash Delhi HC 4.2 Proceedings further, the submissions of Ld. AR that the disallowance could not be made u/s 40(a)(ii) since the expression tax did not include interest, is also tenable in view of the following judicial pronounc…

DCIT 5(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AIR INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4486/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4467, 4518 & 4544/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal.ARFor Respondent: Smt Sailaja Rai, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 44A

…assessee to the revenue for delayed payment of its dues. The said proposition is clearly borne out of the following judicial pronouncements: - No. Case Title Judicial Cittion Authority 1 Anjum MH Ghaswala Hon’ble SC 252 ITR 1 and Ors 2 CIT Vs. Kotal Hon’ble 265 ITR 119 Mahindra Fin Ltd Bombay HC 3 Raju Bhojwani Vs Hon’ble 13 Taxman CIT Delhi HC 221 4 CIT Vs Anand Hon’ble 316 ITR 141 Prakash Delhi HC 4.2 Proceedings further, the submissions of Ld. AR that the disallowance could not be made u/s 40(a)(ii) since the expression tax did not include interest, is also tenable in view of the following judicial pronounc…

DCIT 5(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AIR INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4485/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4467, 4518 & 4544/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal.ARFor Respondent: Smt Sailaja Rai, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 44A

…assessee to the revenue for delayed payment of its dues. The said proposition is clearly borne out of the following judicial pronouncements: - No. Case Title Judicial Cittion Authority 1 Anjum MH Ghaswala Hon’ble SC 252 ITR 1 and Ors 2 CIT Vs. Kotal Hon’ble 265 ITR 119 Mahindra Fin Ltd Bombay HC 3 Raju Bhojwani Vs Hon’ble 13 Taxman CIT Delhi HC 221 4 CIT Vs Anand Hon’ble 316 ITR 141 Prakash Delhi HC 4.2 Proceedings further, the submissions of Ld. AR that the disallowance could not be made u/s 40(a)(ii) since the expression tax did not include interest, is also tenable in view of the following judicial pronounc…

THE DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ICICI BANK LTD. ( ERSTWHILE ANAGRAM FINANCE LTD), MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as above

ITA 5821/MUM/2007[1995-1996]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 1995-1996

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 1995-96

For Appellant: Ms. Jacinta Zimik VashaiFor Respondent: Ms. Aarti Vissanji

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…he depreciation schedule showed that assessee had claimed depreciation on vehicles at rates varying between 20% and 40%. The learned representative explained that the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd., 265 ITR 119 (Bom.) had sought to restrict the depreciation claim to 20% unless it was shown that the vehicles given on lease was used by the hirers in their business of hiring out the trucks. The learned representative explained that the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court was delivered in 2003 whereas assessee had claimed depreciation in its return of…