Kaira Can Company Ltd. v. DCIT

32 DTR 485Reported decision2009#24455 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 37(1)Section 436Section 483

Judgments citing Kaira Can Company Ltd. v. DCIT

Nirman Sonestaa Developers, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1536/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 37Section 37(1)

…CIT [120 TTJ 107 (Kol)] – Payment for regulatory infraction without mens rea held allowable. Hero Cycles Ltd. v. CIT [17 DTR 281 (P&H HC)] – Routine business lapses not involving moral turpitude not hit by Explanation to Section 37(1). Kaira Can Company Ltd. [32 DTR 485] – Regularization charges not considered penal and hence allowable. DCIT v. Bharat C. Gandhi [(2011) 46 SOT 258 (Mum).]. EON Hadapsar Infrastructure (P) Ltd. [(2016) 159 ITD 532 (Pune-Trib.)] Dr. T.A. Qureshi v. CIT [(2006) 287 ITR 547 (SC)] – Supreme Court distinguished between business loss and penal expense; Explanation to Sec.37 applies only t…

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7074/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Vice- & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri M.P.MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen &
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145ASection 2(14)Section 35Section 35DSection 36Section 4Section 43BSection 45

…the valuation of closing stock. The Assessing Officer proceeded to add the unutilised MODVAT credit in the hands of the assessee. On appeal, CIT(A) following the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kaira Can Company Ltd vs. DCIT (2009) 32 DTR 485 (Mum) and decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Mahavir Aluminium Ltd 214 ITR 45 (Del) held that Section 145A of the Act provides for adjustment not 16 ITA No.7074/Mum/2011, (Assessment Year 2004-05) only with respect to closing stock, but also with respect to opening stock, purchases and sales and directed the Asse…

DCIT 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Pranav Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1144/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am)

For Appellant: Ms.Mahua Sarkar
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

…ED TO CIT v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing (Wvg.) Co.Ltd [1999] 237 ITR 253/102 Taxman 433 (Born.) (para 5) and consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. Agricultural Income-tax Officer [2001] 248 ITR 417 (SC)" -  The Hon'bie ITAT in the case of Kaira Can Company Ltd. (32 DTR 485) has held that Payment, made under SEBI Regulation scheme, 2002 for failure to make disclosure as required under SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of shares and Takeovers) Regulations 1997 could not be treated as penalty as it is a payment for regularizing the default committed hence such payment can not be disallowed by invoking explanation to s. 37(…

Kaira Can Company Ltd. v. DCIT (32 DTR 485) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax