CIT v. TM Chacko And Partners

115 ITR 40High Court1975#22074 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Judgments citing CIT v. TM Chacko And Partners

DCIT 42 1 1, Mumbai vs. Pratap Uttam Purohit, Mumbai

ITA 2042/MUM/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025
For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani
Section 131(1)(d)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 41(1)(a)Section 68Section 69C

…d added under section 263 Whether Tribunal found that loan parity was barred by section 263 - Held, yes [Paras 3 and 4] [In favour of assessee] 51. Reliance is also placed upon the decision in the case of Sahibganj Electric Cables (P.) Ltd. reported in [1975] 115 ITR 40(CAL), Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta held as under: Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Cash Credits Assessment year 1961-62 Loans in question were received by assessee by reason of issuing payee cheques and Bank confirmation letters of respective parties were also made by cheques and Bank confirmation letters of respective parties were also ma…

Gamesa Renewable Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 376/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Smt. Vijayalakshmi, CIT,D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)

…deduction.” 31.1 Further, in the case of CIT vs. Udaipur Distillary (160 ITR 444 (Rajasthan) wherein it was held that interest paid for delay in payment of sales tax is allowable expenditure. Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. TM Chacko And Partners (115 ITR 40) (Kerala) wherein it was held that interest paid for late payment of Kist is allowable business expenditure. The same view was taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pachi Phillip & Co., 212 ITR 75 (Kerala). Further, the Tribunal in the case of Remfry & Sagar Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (34 CCH 131 (Delhi) wherein it has be…

Gamesa Renewable Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1420/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Smt. Vijayalakshmi, CIT,D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)

…deduction.” 31.1 Further, in the case of CIT vs. Udaipur Distillary (160 ITR 444 (Rajasthan) wherein it was held that interest paid for delay in payment of sales tax is allowable expenditure. Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. TM Chacko And Partners (115 ITR 40) (Kerala) wherein it was held that interest paid for late payment of Kist is allowable business expenditure. The same view was taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pachi Phillip & Co., 212 ITR 75 (Kerala). Further, the Tribunal in the case of Remfry & Sagar Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (34 CCH 131 (Delhi) wherein it has be…

CIT v. TM Chacko And Partners (115 ITR 40) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax