CIT v. N.M. Parthasarathy

212 ITR 105High Court1995#13791 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

interest on refundsection 115jasection 80hsection 35dsection 145asection 80hhcsection 80hhinterest on securitiessection 244adeduction u/s 80iabusiness connectionbusiness expediency

Judgments citing CIT v. N.M. Parthasarathy

DCIT CIR - 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 573/MUM/2007[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 2000-2001

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri CharuFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Bandi
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ed the claim in respect of fines paid u/s 112(a) and 125 of the Custom Act 1962 holding that same were venial in nature. The ld. CIT(A) has also considered the decision of Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. N.M. Parthasarathy (212 ITR 105) (Mad) & in the case of CIT Vs. Ahmedabad Cotton Imfg. Co. Ltd. (2015 ITR 163)(SC) and held that the item expenditure paid u/s 125 of the Custom Act, 1962 amounting to Rs.19,50,000/- were allowable after relying on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court as referred above. 101. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. During th…

M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3055/MUM/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 2000-2001

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri CharuFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Bandi
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ed the claim in respect of fines paid u/s 112(a) and 125 of the Custom Act 1962 holding that same were venial in nature. The ld. CIT(A) has also considered the decision of Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. N.M. Parthasarathy (212 ITR 105) (Mad) & in the case of CIT Vs. Ahmedabad Cotton Imfg. Co. Ltd. (2015 ITR 163)(SC) and held that the item expenditure paid u/s 125 of the Custom Act, 1962 amounting to Rs.19,50,000/- were allowable after relying on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court as referred above. 101. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. During th…

THE DCIT 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BAJAJAJ AUTO LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2655/MUM/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 2000-2001

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri CharuFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Bandi
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ed the claim in respect of fines paid u/s 112(a) and 125 of the Custom Act 1962 holding that same were venial in nature. The ld. CIT(A) has also considered the decision of Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. N.M. Parthasarathy (212 ITR 105) (Mad) & in the case of CIT Vs. Ahmedabad Cotton Imfg. Co. Ltd. (2015 ITR 163)(SC) and held that the item expenditure paid u/s 125 of the Custom Act, 1962 amounting to Rs.19,50,000/- were allowable after relying on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court as referred above. 101. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. During th…

M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2125/MUM/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 1999-2000

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri CharuFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Bandi
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ed the claim in respect of fines paid u/s 112(a) and 125 of the Custom Act 1962 holding that same were venial in nature. The ld. CIT(A) has also considered the decision of Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. N.M. Parthasarathy (212 ITR 105) (Mad) & in the case of CIT Vs. Ahmedabad Cotton Imfg. Co. Ltd. (2015 ITR 163)(SC) and held that the item expenditure paid u/s 125 of the Custom Act, 1962 amounting to Rs.19,50,000/- were allowable after relying on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court as referred above. 101. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. During th…

THE DY CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1933/MUM/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 1999-2000

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri CharuFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Bandi
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ed the claim in respect of fines paid u/s 112(a) and 125 of the Custom Act 1962 holding that same were venial in nature. The ld. CIT(A) has also considered the decision of Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. N.M. Parthasarathy (212 ITR 105) (Mad) & in the case of CIT Vs. Ahmedabad Cotton Imfg. Co. Ltd. (2015 ITR 163)(SC) and held that the item expenditure paid u/s 125 of the Custom Act, 1962 amounting to Rs.19,50,000/- were allowable after relying on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court as referred above. 101. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. During th…

M/S APARNA AGENCY LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1010/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Sinha, JCIT
Section 37(1)

…eemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business or profession and no deduction or allowance shall be made in respect of such expenditure.” Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Parthasarathy (Mad) 212 ITR 105 (Mad.), wherein it was held that for deciding the question whether an expenditure is hit by explanation1 to Sec.37(1) on has to examine the scheme of the provisions of the relevant statute, providing for payment of such imposts notwithstanding the nomenclature of the impost as given by the statute, to find out whether it is compensatory or penal…

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

ITA/11/2002HC Delhi07 Aug 2014
Section 111Section 37

…ontrols Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2013) 204 DLT 664. The said case also related to payment of redemption fine and reference therein was made to the judgment of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. N.M. Parthasarathy, [1995] 212 ITR 105 and decision of the Supreme Court in Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bombay, [1993] 201 ITR 684. 5. Learned counsel for the Revenue, however, submits that the decision in Usha Micro Process Controls Ltd. (supra) requires reconsideration in view of decisions of other high courts as noticed in Comm…

CIT v. N.M. Parthasarathy (212 ITR 105) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax