Harshad Shantilal Mehta v. Custodian & Ors.

231 ITR 871Supreme Court of India1998#2741 most cited

What is Harshad Shantilal Mehta v. Custodian & Ors. authority for?

The definition of 'tax' under the Income Tax Act does not include interest, penalties, or fees, as these are considered separate concepts under the law. The case supports the distinction between tax and other levies.

43

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Harshad Shantilal Mehta · definition of tax · interest · penalty · fees · separate concepts · Income Tax Act · section 115WA · tax vs interest

Sections most often in play

Section 156Section 220(2)Section 234ESection 119Section 143(1A)Section 200ASection 201(1)Section 201(1A)

Issues it is cited on

section 115wasection 234e(1)section 143(1a)section 285section 117section 215section 139(9)section 2(43)interest under section 201(1a)tax collected at sourcesection 200a(1)(c)section 120

Judgments citing Harshad Shantilal Mehta v. Custodian & Ors.

Delhivery Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1036/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1036/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Delhivery Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pr. Cit-3, Plot No. 5, Sector-44, Central Revenue Building, Gurugram, Haryana-122002 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aapcs9575E Assessee By : Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Sh. M. Baranwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.03.2023

For Appellant: Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 201Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

…n allowed in favour taxpayer as the payment in question are compensatory in nature and in the absence of specific provision no such disallowance is warranted. The above view expressed in the following decisions:  Harshad Shantilal Mehta vs. Custodian [1998] 231 ITR 871 (SC)  Arthur Anderson & Co. vs. ACIT [2010] 324 ITR 240  Mukand Ltd. [2019] 101 taxmann.com 214 (Mumbai - Trib.)  Rungta Mines Ltd. in I.TA No. 1531/Kol./2017)  Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. (1980) 123 ITR 429 13 Delhivery Pvt. Ltd. 25. In the course of revisionary proceedings, the Ld. PCIT on verification of record and Audit party objections obs…

M/S Premier Irrigation Adritec (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-11(1), 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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘सी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "गर"श अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.387/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Premier Irrigation Adritec (P) Ltd.….........…..................….……Appellant 17/1C, Alipore Road, Niharika, Kolkata-700027. [PAN: AAFCM4800Q] vs. ACIT, Circle-11(1), Kolkata...…..……....……........…...…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances by: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCA, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas,…

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

…ession tax did not include interest, is also tenable in view of the following judicial pronouncements: - No. Case Title Judicial Cittion ITA Nos. 4484, 4485,4486, 4518,4544 & 4467/Mum/2018 M/s Air India Ltd., Mumbai. Authority 1 Harshad Shantilal Hon’ble SC 231 ITR 871 Mehta Vs Custodian and ors 2 CIT Vs. Manoj Kumar Hon’ble 217 CTR Beriwal Bombay HC 407 Upon perusal, we find that the in terms of the provisions of Section 40(a)(ii), the assessee is not entitled to claim any deduction for any sum paid on account of any rate or tax levied. The expressions tax as defined u/s 2(43) means income tax chargeable unde…

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

…ession tax did not include interest, is also tenable in view of the following judicial pronouncements: - No. Case Title Judicial Cittion ITA Nos. 4484, 4485,4486, 4518,4544 & 4467/Mum/2018 M/s Air India Ltd., Mumbai. Authority 1 Harshad Shantilal Hon’ble SC 231 ITR 871 Mehta Vs Custodian and ors 2 CIT Vs. Manoj Kumar Hon’ble 217 CTR Beriwal Bombay HC 407 Upon perusal, we find that the in terms of the provisions of Section 40(a)(ii), the assessee is not entitled to claim any deduction for any sum paid on account of any rate or tax levied. The expressions tax as defined u/s 2(43) means income tax chargeable unde…

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

…ession tax did not include interest, is also tenable in view of the following judicial pronouncements: - No. Case Title Judicial Cittion ITA Nos. 4484, 4485,4486, 4518,4544 & 4467/Mum/2018 M/s Air India Ltd., Mumbai. Authority 1 Harshad Shantilal Hon’ble SC 231 ITR 871 Mehta Vs Custodian and ors 2 CIT Vs. Manoj Kumar Hon’ble 217 CTR Beriwal Bombay HC 407 Upon perusal, we find that the in terms of the provisions of Section 40(a)(ii), the assessee is not entitled to claim any deduction for any sum paid on account of any rate or tax levied. The expressions tax as defined u/s 2(43) means income tax chargeable unde…

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

…ession tax did not include interest, is also tenable in view of the following judicial pronouncements: - No. Case Title Judicial Cittion ITA Nos. 4484, 4485,4486, 4518,4544 & 4467/Mum/2018 M/s Air India Ltd., Mumbai. Authority 1 Harshad Shantilal Hon’ble SC 231 ITR 871 Mehta Vs Custodian and ors 2 CIT Vs. Manoj Kumar Hon’ble 217 CTR Beriwal Bombay HC 407 Upon perusal, we find that the in terms of the provisions of Section 40(a)(ii), the assessee is not entitled to claim any deduction for any sum paid on account of any rate or tax levied. The expressions tax as defined u/s 2(43) means income tax chargeable unde…

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

…ession tax did not include interest, is also tenable in view of the following judicial pronouncements: - No. Case Title Judicial Cittion ITA Nos. 4484, 4485,4486, 4518,4544 & 4467/Mum/2018 M/s Air India Ltd., Mumbai. Authority 1 Harshad Shantilal Hon’ble SC 231 ITR 871 Mehta Vs Custodian and ors 2 CIT Vs. Manoj Kumar Hon’ble 217 CTR Beriwal Bombay HC 407 Upon perusal, we find that the in terms of the provisions of Section 40(a)(ii), the assessee is not entitled to claim any deduction for any sum paid on account of any rate or tax levied. The expressions tax as defined u/s 2(43) means income tax chargeable unde…

Expat Engineering India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 503/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 43B

…case with penalty and interest under the Income-tax Act. Tax, penalty and interest are different concepts under the Income-tax Act. The definition of "tax" under section 2(43) does not include penalty or interest. Similarly, under section 156, it is 2 (1998) 231 ITR 871. provided that when any tax, interest, penalty, fine or any of other sum is payable in consequence of any order passed under this Act, the Assessing Officer shall serve upon the assessee a notice of demand as prescribed. The provisions for imposition of penalty and interest are distinct from the provisions for imposition of tax." 10. The decision…

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)

…pplicable to the facts of the present case. Further, he submitted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Arthur Anderson & Co. vs ACIT (2010) 324 ITR 240 (Bom), relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harshad Shantilal Mehta vs Custodian (1998) 231 ITR 871 (SC) held that interest u/s 220(2) is not disallowable. The Ld.AR has also relied upon the following decisions:- 1. DCIT VS Narayani Ispat Pvt Ltd – ITA No.2127/Kol/2014 2. Sai Food Products Pvt Ltd vs DCIT – ITA o.1887/Kol/2016 3. IDS Next Business Solutions Pvt Ltd vs ACIT – ITA No.510/Bang/2018 4.DCIT vs Rungta Mines Ltd – ITA 1531/Kol/201…

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)

…: 2015-16 Act in respect of interest charged on arrears of sales tax. In that context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the deduction holding that the nature of such interest is compensatory. Similarly, in case of Harshad Shantilal Mehta vs. Custodian (1998) 231 ITR 871 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with an issue concerning whether tax due under the Special Court (Trial Offences relating to transactions in securities) Act, 1992 would include interest and penalty. Thus, in the context of specific provisions contained under the said Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that tax due would not include i…

Sri Saurabh Tiwary, Jamshedpur vs. ACIT Cir-3, Jamshedpur

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 350/RAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम Sauravh Tiwary Acit, Circle-3, Jamshedpur / Banglow No.9999/287, Vijaya V/S. Garden, 5Th Phase, Baridih, Jamshedpur-831017. Pan No.Agfpt6115J अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 37(1)

…A), the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. We have heard the submission of the learned counsel for the Assessee who relied on the decision of the Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of Harshad Shantilal Mehta Vs. Custodian and Others 231 ITR 871 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the definition of "tax" under s. 2(43) does not include penalty or interest. The Hon’ble Court held that under s. 156, it is provided that when any tax, interest, penalty, fine or any of other sum is payable in consequence of any order passed under this Act, the AO shall serve upon the assessee a…

Tata Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-2 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2847/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice & Shri Ravish Soodtata Steel Limited Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Bombay House, Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, 24, Homi Mody Street, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Vs. Fort, Mumbai 400 001 Mumbai 400 020. Pan – Aaact2803M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Kirit Kamdar, A.R Respondent By: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.01.2020 O R D E R Per Ravish Sood, Jm The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Mumbai (For Short „Pr.Cit‟) Under Sec. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short „Act‟) Dated 28.03.2019 For A.Y 2012-13. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:- Sr. No. Ground (S) Amount (S) Of Disallowance 1. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax [“Ld. Pcit”] Erred In Rs.41,70,51,091 Revising, Purportedly Under Sec.263, The Assessment Order “U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C (13) Of The I.T. Act, 1961”, Dated 27Th February, 2017, Of The (Tax Effect Learned Assessing Officer [“Ld. A.O”]. Rs.13,53,12,226/-) Ground (S) On Jurisdiction Amount (S) Of Disallowance 2. Without Prejudice To The Generality Of The Foregoing, The Ld. Pcit‟S Rs.41,70,51,091 Revisional Order Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal For The Following Reasons: (Tax Effect (I) The Initiation Of The Proceedings Under Sec.263 Was Without Rs.13,53,12,226/-) Jurisdiction, Inasmuch As That Provision, In Terms, Authorizes The Authorities Specified Therein To Revise Only An “…….. Order Passed…………By The Assessing Officer……….” Not An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (“Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITA No.2847/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 1 Tata Steel ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT-2(3)(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Pramod Kumar, VIcePresident and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member Tata Steel Limited Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Bombay House, Room No. 552, 5th Floor, 24, Homi Mody Street, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Vs. Fort, Mumbai 400 001 Mumbai 400 020. PAN – AAACT2803M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Kirit Kamdar, A.R Respondent by: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT D.R Date of Hearing: 15.10.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 08.01.2020 O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JM…

Shri Varjinder Singh Chhabra, Indore vs. DCIT 1 (1), Indore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 283/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Oct 2019

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 Varjinder Singh Chhabra Dcit-1(1) 1, Near Asharamji Ka Indore बनाम/ Ashram Vs. Khandwa Road Vill. Limbodi Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Acjpc6685J Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit-5(1) Varjinder Singh Chhabra Indore 1, Near Asharamji Ka Ashram बनाम/ Khandwa Road Vs. Vill. Limbodi Indore (Appellant) (Revenue )

Section 2Section 234BSection 249(4)(a)

…mbay High Court has [ITA No.283/Ind/2018 & ITA No.484/Ind/2013] [Shri Varjinder Singh, Chhabra, Indore] answered this question by relying on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Harshad Shantilal Mehta Vs. Custodian & Ors (1998) 231 ITR 871 (SC) that tax for the purpose of section 249(4)(a) of the Act would not include interest thereon. Further reliance is placed on the decision of the coordinate bench rendered in the case of Subbiah Nadar & Sons Vs. ACIT in ITA No.1710/Mad/1995. Ld. Coordinate bench of this Tribunal examined this aspect and held as under: [ITA No.283/Ind/2018 & IT…

The DCIT, 5(1), Indore vs. Shri Varjinder Singh Chhabra, Indore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 484/IND/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 Varjinder Singh Chhabra Dcit-1(1) 1, Near Asharamji Ka Indore बनाम/ Ashram Vs. Khandwa Road Vill. Limbodi Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Acjpc6685J Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit-5(1) Varjinder Singh Chhabra Indore 1, Near Asharamji Ka Ashram बनाम/ Khandwa Road Vs. Vill. Limbodi Indore (Appellant) (Revenue )

Section 2Section 234BSection 249(4)(a)

…mbay High Court has [ITA No.283/Ind/2018 & ITA No.484/Ind/2013] [Shri Varjinder Singh, Chhabra, Indore] answered this question by relying on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Harshad Shantilal Mehta Vs. Custodian & Ors (1998) 231 ITR 871 (SC) that tax for the purpose of section 249(4)(a) of the Act would not include interest thereon. Further reliance is placed on the decision of the coordinate bench rendered in the case of Subbiah Nadar & Sons Vs. ACIT in ITA No.1710/Mad/1995. Ld. Coordinate bench of this Tribunal examined this aspect and held as under: [ITA No.283/Ind/2018 & IT…

Jaso India Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 507/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi]

Section 143(3)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No.507/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jaso India Private Limited.…………………….......................................……………………………......Appellant 1/1A Mahendra Roy Lane Block-1, Office Number-905 Kolkata – 700 046 [PAN : AACCJ 1062 G] Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata……...……….…………….. Respondent Appearances by: Shri Kamal Sawhney, A/R, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, Sr. DR, appearing on behalf of…

Hitech Plast Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), Mumbai

ITA 4358/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. B. R. Baskaran, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4358/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit (Osd) Rg 8(1) Hitech Plast Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Earlier Known As Clear Road, Mumbai-20 Mipak Packaging Solutions Ltd. बिधम/ Unit No. 201, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Welspun House, Kamala City, Senapati Bpat Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai- 400013 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaacc4489N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Dalpat Shah प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Ms. Pooja Swaroop सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 25.01.18 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30.01.18 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeal) -16, Mumbai Dated 31.03.16 For Ay 2011-12 On The Grounds Mentioned Herein Below:-

For Appellant: Shri Dalpat ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SH. B. R. BASKARAN, AM & SH. SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4358/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) DCIT (OSD) RG 8(1) Hitech Plast Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, M. k. Earlier known as Clear Road, Mumbai-20 Mipak Packaging Solutions Ltd. बिधम/ Unit No. 201, 2nd floor, Vs. Welspun House, Kamala City, Senapati Bpat Marg, Lower parel (w), Mumbai- 400013 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAACC4489N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Dalpat Shah प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Ms. Pooja Swaroop सुन…

Starlight Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known As Damask Infracon Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent Cir. 37, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 2295/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2295/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिधम/ M/S. Starlight Hospitality Acit Central Circle-37 Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known As Vs. Mumbai Damask Infracon Pvt. Ltd.) M/S. Thar & Co., Chartered Accountants, 203, Capri Building, Opp. Hdil Tower, Anant Kanekar Marg, Bandra-East, Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aalcs7231D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Virag Shah Revenue By: Shri Vidhyadhar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17. 01.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.02.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2010-11 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao By Virtue Of Order Dated 27.06.2013 Has Been Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Virag ShahFor Respondent: Shri Vidhyadhar
Section 115JSection 139Section 143(3)Section 201Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…f re-opening of assessment arising out of deductibility of interest charged u/s 220(2) vis-à-vis section 40(a)(ii) of the Act, Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court followed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harshad Shantilal Mehta Vs. Custodian, (1998 231 ITR 871 (SC) wherein it is held that the definition of tax u/s 2(43) does not include penalty or interest and set aside the notice issued for re- opening the assessment. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, decision of used u/s 40(a)(ii) would include interest charged u/s 201(1A) is not free from the doubt, hence, a debatable issue. Moreover, the explanation…

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)

…Apart from the fact that there has been no failure on the part of the assessee to make a full and true disclosure of all material facts, it will be necessary to advert to the decision of the Supreme Court in Harshad Shantilal Mehta vs. Custodian & Ors. (1998) 231 ITR 871 (SC). The Supreme Court, in the course of its judgment observed that under the IT Act, 1961 the definition of tax under s. 2(43) does not include penalty or interest and that the concepts of tax, penalty and interest are different concepts under the Act. Justice Sujata Manohar speaking for a Bench of three learned Judges of the Supreme Court obse…

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)

…Apart from the fact that there has been no failure on the part of the assessee to make a full and true disclosure of all material facts, it will be necessary to advert to the decision of the Supreme Court in Harshad Shantilal Mehta vs. Custodian & Ors. (1998) 231 ITR 871 (SC). The Supreme Court, in the course of its judgment observed that under the IT Act, 1961 the definition of tax under s. 2(43) does not include penalty or interest and that the concepts of tax, penalty and interest are different concepts under the Act. Justice Sujata Manohar speaking for a Bench of three learned Judges of the Supreme Court obse…

S. Ramaswamy, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD-II) RG 7

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2004-

ITA 3378/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Shri S. Ramaswamy, The Dcit (Osd-Ii), Room No. 35-A, Central Range-7, Readymoney Mansion, Mumbai 43, Veer Nariman Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400093 Pan: Acyps8259D (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri S. Ramaswamy, The Dcit (Osd-Ii), Room No. 35-A, Central Range-7, Readymoney Mansion, Mumbai 43, Veer Nariman Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400093 Pan: Acyps8259D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punamiya (Ar) Revenue By : Shri V. Justin (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21/09/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/09/2017

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punamiya (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Justin (DR)
Section 139Section 142Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Shri S. Ramaswamy, The DCIT (OSD-II), Room No. 35-A, Central Range-7, Readymoney Mansion, Mumbai 43, Veer Nariman Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400093 PAN: ACYPS8259D (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri S. Ramaswamy, The DCIT (OSD-II), Room No. 35-A, Central Range-7, Readymoney Mansion, Mumbai 43, Veer Nariman Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400093 PAN: ACYPS8259D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vimal Punamiya (AR) Revenue by : Shri V. Justin (DR) Date of Hearin…

Harshad Shantilal Mehta v. Custodian & Ors. (231 ITR 871) — Cited in 43 Judgments | BharatTax