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 406High Court1992#3164 most cited

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.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. v. CIT · interest on delayed TDS · short deduction of TDS · business expenditure · section 37(1) · section 201(1A) · compensatory interest · not allowable deduction

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 201(1A)Section 37(1)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 90(3)Section 69C Section 115-BBE(2)Section 131

Issues it is cited on

section 215 compensatory interest section 90(3)section 256(1)section 256 section 36(1)(viii)section 201(1a)explanation to section 37 transferor company short deduction of tds section 40(a)(ii)interest under section 201(1a)

Judgments citing Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. v. CIT

Trinity Infraventures Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 403/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. R. Helen Ruby Jesindha, DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37Section 37(1)

…is not interest paid on per se and the same is in the nature Page 4 of 6 of compensation and not penal. In Resolve Salvage & Fire India (P.) Ltd., (supra), the Tribunal after noticing the decisions in the case of Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd., Vs. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 406 (Bom), Bharat Commerce Industries Ltd., Vs. CIT (1985) 20 Taxman 302 and Setup Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 5827/Mum/2012 by order dated 11/12/2018 observed that the interest paid on delayed payments of TDS under section 201(1A) of the Act is an allowable deduction. Lastly, in the case of M/s. Taksheel Solutions Limited (supra), it…

M/S Bhopal Dugdh Sangh Sahakari My.Dairy Plant, Bhopal vs. DCIT -1 (1), Bhopal

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

ITA 128/IND/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patva, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Amit Soni, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

…rest 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 A.Y. 2012-13 Page 14 of 15 (P) Ltd. [1989] 177 ITR 222 (Bom). The Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Comm…

ACIT 13 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Vega Chemicals Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 750/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit – 13(3)(2) Vs. M/S Vega Chemicals Room No. 229/2019, Pvt Ltd 2Nd Floor, Aayakar C-404, Gokuldham, Bhavan, Mk Road, Dindoshi Mumbai-400020. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400063 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecv1029M Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Aditya Ramchandra.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N.Kabra.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21 Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Aditya Ramchandra.ARFor Respondent: Mr.S.N.Kabra.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ACIT – 13(3)(2) Vs. M/s Vega Chemicals Room No. 229/2019, Pvt Ltd 2nd Floor, Aayakar C-404, Gokuldham, Bhavan, MK Road, Dindoshi Mumbai-400020. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400063 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAECV1029M Appellant .. Respondent Assessee by : Mr.Aditya Ramchandra.AR Revenue by : Mr.S.N.Kabra.DR Date of Hearing 23.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement 22.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The revenue has filed the appeal against the order of t…

Icici Home Finance Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1325/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: R.A. Dhyani

Section 14ASection 201Section 250Section 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(viil)Section 37(1)

…nd No. 6 which is relating to disallowance of interest for delayed payment of TDS amounting to ₹.31,78,935/-, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted as under: - “AO - paragraph 8 CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance relying upon Ferro Alloys Corp.Ltd. v CIT, 196 ITR 406 (Born) -paragraph 4.3 Submission: Interest is compensatory and not penal and hence allowable Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 315 ITR 102 (Kar) and CIT v United Insurance Co. Ltd. 325 1TR231 (Kar)” 13. Ld.DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. M/s. ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd., 14. Considered the rival submissions and materia…

M/S Resoive & Fire India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 841/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 201Section 206C(7)Section 215Section 220(2)

…eved, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) and Ld.CIT(A) allowed the fresh claim made by the assessee considering the same as legal in nature; however, disallowed the same on merits relying upon the decision of Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd vs CIT (1992)196 ITR 406 (Bom) and CIT vs Chennai Properties and Investment Ltd (1999) 239 ITR 435 (Mad). Further aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us. 3. The Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the issue involved in this case is that the assessee has paid interest on late payment of TDS. He submitted that the amount of tax deduction at source represents the amou…

Rukmani Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 358/CTK/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.358/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Rukmani Infra Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Plot No.251, District Centre, C.S.Pur, Bhubaneswar-16 Pan No. : Aaecr 1585 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Has Been Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 16.06.2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Extracted From The Available Records Are That, The Assessee, A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Engaged In The Business Of Erection, Commissioning, Technical & Maintenance Service To Different Power Plants. The Return Of Income For The Ay 2013-14 Was Filed By The Assessee On 01.10.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,65,91,030/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected Under Cass. Notice U/S 143(2) & 143(1) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. Assessment Proceedings Were Completed By The Ao & Concluded With An Addition Of Rs.3,58,95,574/- Under Four Different

For Appellant: None

Section 143(2)Section 68

…er Of Income-Tax vs Chennai Properties 239 ITR 435 . Relevant para 13 and 14 of the said order are as under: 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…

Subsea Pro Engineering Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-16 (3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 5884/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Judcial Member & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2015-16 Subsea Pro Engineering Private Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, 509 & 510, Techniplex Ii, Opp Circle 16 (3), Techniplex Complex, Jn. Veer Vs. Room No. 449, Aaykar Bhavan, Savarkar Flyover, Maharashi Karve Road, Goregaon (West), Churchgate- 400020 Mumbai - 400062 Pan: Aapcs6354R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Viswas Mehandale (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Menon (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/08/2021

For Appellant: Shri Viswas Mehandale (AR)For Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon (DR)

Section 139Section 201Section 37Section 37(1)

…nt of TDS is not eligible as deduction under section 37 of the Act. In support of such contention, in addition to the decisions relied upon by the departmental authorities, he relied upon the following decisions: 1. Ferro Alloy Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 406 (Bom) 2. CIT vs. Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd. 1999 105 taxmann.com 346 (Madras). 3. Velankani Information Systems Ltd. vs. DCIT (2018) 97 taxmann.com 599 (Bangalore Trib.) 6. In rejoinder, learned Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted, the decisions relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative would not be applica…

Hari Machines Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 213/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Hari Machines Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 4, Scindia House, Connaught Circle-11(1), Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaach0868C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 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…

Iris Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 7548/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: The Assessing

…income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT-DR also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chennai Properties Ltd. reported in 239 ITR 435 (Madras) and the case of Ferro Alloys Corporation vs. CIT reported in [1992] 196 ITR 406 (Bombay). The Ld. CIT-DR emphasized that the default in payment of statutory liabilities always has penal consequences and not compensatory consequences and, therefore, the appeal of the assessee deserved to be dismissed. 5.0 We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the material on record. It is seen that ITAT Kolkata Bench…

Muthoot Agri Development & Hospitalities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 2237/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri O. P. Meena (Sr. AR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…ng of interest paid on TDS in sum of Rs.12,380/-. It is admitted by Ld. Representative of the 5 A.Y. 2014-15 assessee that the issue has been decided against the assessee by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 406 (Bom). The relevant finding is hereby reproduced as under.:- “1. At the instance of the assessee, the following question of law is referred for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim for deduction levied under section 220(2) of Rs. 6,03,168…

M/S. Industrial Develop, Ment Bank of India, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

ITA 3371/MUM/2004[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2020AY 1998-1999

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3371/Mum/2004 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3372/Mum/2004 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3373/Mum/2004 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2000-01) Industrial Development Bank Of The Dy. Commissioner Of Income India, Taxation Cell, 3 Rd Floor, Tax, Range 3(1), 6 Th Floor, Room Vs. Idbi Tower, Wtc Complex, No. 623, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 Road, Mumbai-400 020 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaaci1105R Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 4744/Mum/2005 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2001-02) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 5962/Mum/2008 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2002-03) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3907/Mum/2009 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2003-04) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3908/Mum/2009 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2004-05) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3909/Mum/2009 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2005-06) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2488/Mum/2010 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2006-07) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 13/Mum/2011

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “C” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री भहावीय स िंह, न्मायमक दस्म एविं श्री याजेश कुभाय रेखा दस्म के भक्ष। BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3371/Mum/2004 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3372/Mum/2004 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3373/Mum/2004 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2000-01) Industrial Development Bank of The Dy. Commissioner of Income India, Taxation Cell, 3 rd Floor, Tax, Range 3(1), 6 th Floor, room Vs. ID…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dlf Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2749/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri SatyajeetFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Rai, Adv. Special counsel

Section 10Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

…siness of the assessee and the interest paid on the arrears of the cess took colour from the cess which was paid. 8. Learned counsel for the Revenue also referred to the decisions of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ferro Alloys Corpn. Ltd, vs. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 406 (Bom) : TC 17R.817 and the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Martin & Harris (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1994) 73 Taxman 555 (Cal). It was held in those cases that the I.T.A. No.2126 & 2749/DEL/2013 32 interest paid under s. 201(1A) of the Act was not deductible as business expenditure under s. 37 of the Act. 9. As already noticed the pay…

Dlf Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2126/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri SatyajeetFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Rai, Adv. Special counsel

Section 10Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

Vidyut Metallics P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle- 38(New Central Circle-6(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 5243/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5243/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5244/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Vidyut Metallics Pvt.Ltd. Acit-Cc 38 बनाम/ 4Th Floor, Malhotra House [New Central Circle-6(3) 19Th Floor, Air India Building Opp. Gpo, Fort Vs. Mumbai-400 001. Nariman Point, Mumbai-21. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcv-3305-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jha and Shri Dr. Prayag Jha- Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Gobgtra - Ld.DR

Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 40

…his Tribunal rendered in Mukund Ltd. Vs. ITO [supra]. Upon perusal of the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court, it transpires that the same, inter-alia, places reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in Ferro Alloys Corpn. Ltd.Vs. CIT [196 ITR 406] wherein our jurisdictional High Court has concluded the matter in favor of revenue by observing as under: - V.A. Mohta, J.—At the instance of the assessee, the following question of law is referred for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the clai…

Yogendra Khandelwal, Jaipur vs. JCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 735/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Jain (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri J. C. Kulhari (JCIT)

Section 201Section 40

…18), we had an occasion to examine a similar as under:- “11. As far as interest on late payment of TDS u/s 201 (1A) is concerned, useful reference can be drawn to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd vs. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 406 (Bom) where interest payment u/s 201(1A) for failure to deduct or pay tax deducted at source was held not deductible. A Similar view has been taken by the Madras High Court in case of CIT vs. Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd., (1999) 239 ITR 435 (Mad) wherein it was held as under (Head notes): “The liability for deduction of tax arises by reas…

Hta Marketing Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2068/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Hta Marketing Services Dcit-2(1)(2), Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Peninsula Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Vs. Chambers, G.K. Marg, Mumbai-400020. Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013. Pan No. Aaacf0692A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ajit C. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sachchidanand Dube, Dr Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Ajit C. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sachchidanand Dube, DR

Section 143(3)Section 201Section 215Section 220(2)Section 37Section 40

…by the AO. 4. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submits that the issue in the instant case has been decided against the assessee by the High Court in Martin & Harris (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 73 Taxman 555 (Cal), Ferro Alloys Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 406 (Bom) and CIT v. Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd. (1999) 105 Taxman 346 (Mad). The Ld. DR agrees with the above submission of the Ld. counsel. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. In the case of Martin & Harris (P.) Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has held that “whenever interest i…

Allied Media Network P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3545/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Allied Media Network Pvt. Dcit, Range-7(1), Aayakar Ltd., P-2, Level 3, Percept Bhavan, M.K. Marg Vs. House, 22 Raghuvanshi Mumbai-400020 Estate, 11/12 Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aadcp9975H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Pankaj Jain, Ar Revenue By : Ms. S. Padmaja, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/06/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Pankaj Jain, ARFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…see’s business. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the claim for deduction made by the assessee u/s 37(1) as well as 36(1)(iii) was misconceived. 12.2 We now turn to the following direct decisions on the above issue. In Ferro Alloys Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 406 (Bom), the assessee was required to pay interest under sections 201(1A), 215 and 220 of the Act. These amounts were claimed as business expenditure under section 37 of the Act. The ITO, the Commissioner in first appeal Allied Media Network Pvt. 8 and the Tribunal in second appeal, rejected the said claim as not allowable under section 37. On ref…