What is Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Interest levied for delayed payment or short deduction of TDS is not an allowable business expenditure.

How many judgments cite Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. v. CIT?

37 judgments on BharatTax cite Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (196 ITR 406), spanning 2018 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 201(1A), Section 37(1), Section 36(1)(viii), Section 90(3), Section 69C.

Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (196 ITR 406)

SHETH REALTORS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CC-7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5947/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Arun Khodpiashri Sandeep Singh Karhailsheth Realtors Vasant Oasis, Site Office, Upper Basement, Cts No.345A 1 To 3, 345A 5 To 6, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri (East), ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400059 Pan: Aavfa3975F

For Appellant: Dr. K ShivramFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250

…elayed payment of TDS is compensatory and not penal in nature. Accordingly, as per the assessee, the same is allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. 12. We find that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in (1992) 196 ITR 406 (Bom), held that the interest levied for delayed payment of TDS is not an allowable business expenditure. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the aforesaid decision, are reproduced as follows: - “At the instance of the assessee, the following question of law is referred for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of…

BANK OF BARODA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the appellant are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2392/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri C. Naresh

Section 143(3)Section 90(3)

…Welkin Telecom Infra (142 taxman.com 146), stating that interest paid under section 201(1A) is an allowable deduction under section 37 of the Act. 9 Bank of Baroda 6.1 But, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ferro Alloys Corporation Vs. Ld. CIT(A) (196 ITR 406) (Bom) has decided that the interest under section 201(1A) of the Act is not allowable as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act, where it was held that the said claim is against the basic undisputed background. It was also mentioned at para 3 that the point stands concluded against appellant by the consistent view of this Court righ…

BANK OF BARODA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the appellant are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1243/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri C. Naresh

Section 143(3)Section 90(3)

…Welkin Telecom Infra (142 taxman.com 146), stating that interest paid under section 201(1A) is an allowable deduction under section 37 of the Act. 9 Bank of Baroda 6.1 But, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ferro Alloys Corporation Vs. Ld. CIT(A) (196 ITR 406) (Bom) has decided that the interest under section 201(1A) of the Act is not allowable as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act, where it was held that the said claim is against the basic undisputed background. It was also mentioned at para 3 that the point stands concluded against appellant by the consistent view of this Court righ…

BANK OF BARODA ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the appellant are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1241/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri C. Naresh

Section 143(3)Section 90(3)

…Welkin Telecom Infra (142 taxman.com 146), stating that interest paid under section 201(1A) is an allowable deduction under section 37 of the Act. 9 Bank of Baroda 6.1 But, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ferro Alloys Corporation Vs. Ld. CIT(A) (196 ITR 406) (Bom) has decided that the interest under section 201(1A) of the Act is not allowable as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act, where it was held that the said claim is against the basic undisputed background. It was also mentioned at para 3 that the point stands concluded against appellant by the consistent view of this Court righ…

DCIT-C-6(2), MUMBAI vs. SAMIRA HABITATS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection by the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 5714/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.5714/Mum/2024 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 250

…under section 37(1) of the Act on the basis that the interest paid on delayed payment/short deduction of TDS is not penal but compensatory in nature. 38. We find that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. v/s CIT, reported in (1992) 196 ITR 406 (Bom), held that the interest levied for delayed payment of TDS is not an allowable business expenditure. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the aforesaid decision, are reproduced as follows: - “At the instance of the assessee, the following question of law is referred for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of…

DCIT-C-6(2), MUMBAI vs. SAMIRA HABITATS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

ITA 5710/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 250

…der Section 37(1) of the Act on the basis that the interest\npaid on delayed payment/short deduction of TDS is not penal but\ncompensatory in nature.\n38. We find that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Ferro Alloys Corporation\nLtd. v/s CIT, reported in (1992) 196 ITR 406 (Bom), held that the interest\nlevied for delayed payment of TDS is not an allowable business expenditure.\nThe relevant findings of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the aforesaid\ndecision, are reproduced as follows:\n\"At the instance of the assessee, the following question of law is referred for\nthe opinion of this court under Section 256(1)…

DCIT-C-6(2), MUMBAI vs. SAMIRA HABITATS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

ITA 5709/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 250

…der section 37(1) of the Act on the basis that the interest\npaid on delayed payment/short deduction of TDS is not penal but\ncompensatory in nature.\n38. We find that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Ferro Alloys Corporation\nLtd. v/s CIT, reported in (1992) 196 ITR 406 (Bom), held that the interest\nlevied for delayed payment of TDS is not an allowable business expenditure.\nThe relevant findings of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the aforesaid\ndecision, are reproduced as follows: -\n\"At the instance of the assessee, the following question of law is referred for\nthe opinion of this court under section 256(…

WISSEN TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1082/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1082/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Wissen Technology Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Limited Of Income Tax Bangalore Circle-17(2) [Pan : Aabcw5249H] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Prabhakara Murthy, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 11/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.09.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], Siliguri, Relating To A.Y.2018-19 On The Following Grounds : 1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of Appellant’S Case, The Impugned Order Under Section 250 Of I.T.Act Passed By Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Siliguri, In Adjudicating The Appeal Filed Against Intimation U/S 143(1) Of I.T.Act Is Not Correct Both On The Facts & In The Law Applicable To The Facts Of The Appellant’S

For Appellant: Shri P.Prabhakara MurthyFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)

…of coordinate Bench of ITAT Hyderabad in the case of M/s Trinity Infraventures Limited Vs. ACIT in ITA No.403/Hyd/2022, where, the Tribunal, by following the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 406 (Bom), held that, interest paid on delayed payment of TDS u/s 201(1A) is 5 compensatory in nature, and therefore allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under : “7. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. There is no dispute as to the facts that the assessee failed…

THE DCIT CIRCLE 5(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S L N MALVIYA INFRA PROJECTS P LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 189/IND/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Jan 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit, Circle 5(1) M/S. L.N. Malviya Infra Projects Bhopal Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.29, F/F Sector, Dwarka Vs. New Delhi

Section 234ASection 3(3)Section 37(1)

…erest paid under Section 201(1A) of the Act, therefore, would not assume the character of business expenditure and cannot be regarded as a compensatory payment as contended by learned counsel for the assessee.” (ii) Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT(1992) 196 ITR 406 (Bombay High Court): The Hon’ble Court held thus: “3. The point stands concluded against the assessee by the consistent view of this court right from Aruna Mills Ltd. [1957] 31 ITR 153 to CIT v. Ghatkopar Estate and Finance Corporation (P) Ltd. [1989] 177 ITR 222 (Bom). The Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Commerce Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1…

FLEMINGO DUTYFREE SHOP PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CEN-CIR-8(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2218/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhflemingo Dutyfree Shop Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-8(4) Private Limited, 6Th Floor, Aayakar D-73/1 Ttc D-73/1 Ttc Bhavan, M.K. Road, Industrial Area, New Marine Lines, Midc Turbhe, Churchgate, Navi Mumbai – 400705 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacf7909E Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : J.P. Baragra Respondent By : Ujjawal Kumar Chavan Date Of Hearing 26.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.10.2023

For Appellant: J.P. BaragraFor Respondent: Ujjawal Kumar Chavan

Section 143(2)Section 201Section 37(1)

…s of the assessee and the interest paid on the arrears of the cess took colour from the cess which was paid. 13. Learned counsel for the Revenue also referred to the decisions of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 406 and the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Martin and Harris Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 73 Taxman 555. It was held in those cases that the interest paid under Section 201(1A) of the Act was not deductible as business expenditure under Section 37 of the Act. 14. As already noticed the payment of interest takes colour from the nature o…

COLUMBUS OVERSEAS LLP,16, RAJA PARK, ADARSH NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JAIPUR, NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DAS ROAD, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 196/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…TR 429 (SC) ii. CIT Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (2009) 183 Taxmann (Karnataka) 186 iii. Taksheel Solutions Limited Vs. ACIT - ITA No.1768/Hyd/2012 iv. M/s Trinity Infra Venture Ltd Vs. ACIT ITA N90.403/Hyd/2021 v. Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd Vs. CIT (1992)196 ITR 406 (Bombay) vi. Resolve Salvage & Fine Ind P. Ltd Vs. DCIT ITA No. 841/Mum/2019 order dt. 18/4/2022 In the above cases, it has been held that payment of interest on TDS is of compensatory nature and is not of penal nature, therefore, the same is allowable. In these circumstances, the claim of the assessee was in order and there was no case on this i…

ICICI HOME FINANCE COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5949/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Section 14ASection 201Section 250Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43A

…year 2009-10 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by restricting disallowance to the extent of Rs 1,55,166/- for delayed payment after following the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. Vs CIT(1992) 196 ITR 406(BOM) 26. During the course of appeal proceedings before us the Ld. Counsel submitted that identical issue on similar fact has been decided by the ITAT Mumbai in the case of the assessee itself for assessment year 2009-10. 27. Heard both the sides and perused the material on the record. We have perused the decision of ITAT Mumbai in the case of t…

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI HOME FINANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5906/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Section 14ASection 201Section 250Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43A

…year 2009-10 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by restricting disallowance to the extent of Rs 1,55,166/- for delayed payment after following the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. Vs CIT(1992) 196 ITR 406(BOM) 26. During the course of appeal proceedings before us the Ld. Counsel submitted that identical issue on similar fact has been decided by the ITAT Mumbai in the case of the assessee itself for assessment year 2009-10. 27. Heard both the sides and perused the material on the record. We have perused the decision of ITAT Mumbai in the case of t…

VIRAJ PROFILES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-CC-3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 775/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

…h are in respect of deleting the disallowance of interest expenditure on late payment of TDS, Ld.DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and further relied on the decision Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Ferro Alloys Corpn. Ltd. vs. CIT (196 ITR 406). 23. Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that during the year, Assessing Officer observed that assesse has paid interest of ₹.2,84,839/-on account of late payment of TDS. It is also held that this interest is penal in nature and hence, the Assessing Officer made the disallowance of interest Page No. | 17 ITA NOs. 775, 776, 2097 & 2098/MUM/2021 (A…

M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 387/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 2(24)Section 250Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…the Act, therefore, would not assume the character of business expenditure and cannot be regarded as a compensatory payment as contended by learned counsel for the assessee. 7.5The Bombay High Court in the case of Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 406 (Bom) and Calcutta High Court judgment in the case of Martin and Harris Pvt. Ltd, vs. CIT [1994] 73 Taxman 555 (Cal.): Income Tax Reference No. 113 Of 1983 have also taken the similar views and held that interest u/s 201(1A) is not deductible as business expenditure under section 37. Both these decisions find a place in the case of Chennai Proper…