Lachmandas Mathura v. CIT

254 ITR 799Supreme Court of India2002#885 most cited

What is Lachmandas Mathura v. CIT authority for?

Interest paid on delayed payment of statutory dues, such as sales tax, service tax, TDS, and GST, is compensatory in nature rather than penal. Consequently, such interest is an allowable deduction in computing business profits.

119

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Lachmandas Mathura v. CIT · 254 ITR 799 · Section 37(1) · interest on delayed payment · statutory dues · compensatory interest · penal interest · allowable deduction · business expenditure · sales tax interest · service tax interest · TDS interest · GST interest

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 132Section 36(1)(iii)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 1961Section 201(1A)

Issues it is cited on

section 215section 226section 2(43)explanation to section 37section 40(a)(ii)section 2(28a)section 14a(1)statutory duessection 211interest under section 201(1a)prohibited by lawsection 21

Judgments citing Lachmandas Mathura v. CIT

The Louis Berger Group Inc, Gugaon vs. Assistant Commissioner of Incomne Tax, International Taxation, Gurgaon

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

ITA 2630/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshthe Louis Berger Group Inc, Vs. Acit, Plot No. 3, Surinder Jakhir Dcit/Acit, International Bhawan, Sector-32, Gurgaon Taxation, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacl4067F

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vazanta, CIT DR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…he Act. We find that the issue as to whether interest on delayed payment of GST and service tax could be construed as penal in nature was the subject matter of consideration by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lachmandas Mathuradas Vs. CIT reported in 254 ITR 799 (SC), wherein, it was held that interest payment on arrears of sales tax is compensatory in nature and would be allowable as deduction while computing the business income. Respectfully following the same, the Ground No. 9 raised by the assessee is hereby allowed. 19. Ground Nos. 10 and 11 raised by assessee for seeking correct amount of TDS credi…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. Welkin Telecom Infra Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1087/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav (Vice President), Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member)

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(3)

…d Assessing Officer has contended that interest paid is penal in nature and should be disallowed. 6.32 The following judicial proceedings can be referred to in light of the subject matter A. The Apex court in the case of Lachandas Mathura Vs. CIT reported in 254 ITR 799 held that,"The High Court has proceeded on the basis that the interest on arrears of sales tax is penal in nature and has rejected the contention of the assessee that it is compensatory in nature. In taking the said view the High Court has placed reliance on its Full Bench decision in Saraya Sugar Mills P. Ltd. v. CIT (1979] 116 1TR 387 (All). Le…

Friends Timber Pvt. Ltd, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 120/NAG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

…following case laws:– 1. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills v/s CIT, [1980] 123 ITR 429 (SC); 2. Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v/s CITv [1983] 144 ITR 732 (All.) 3. CIT v/s H.P. State Forest Corporation, [2010] 320 ITR 170 (HP); 4. Lachmandas Mathuradas v/s CIT, [2002] 254 ITR 799 (SC); and 5. DCIT v/s Messee Dusseldorf India (P) Ltd., [2010] 129 TTJ (Del.) (UO) 81. 5. The Assessing Officer, however, considering the submissions of the assessee and the above case laws, held that the aforesaid case laws are altogether different from facts of this case. He held that facts of the above case laws are altogether different from f…

M/S Stylam Industries Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

ITA 394/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 40ASection 5(2)Section 6Section 9(1)

…arising due to a penalty on the part of the assessee for not making deposit within the stipulated time. The ld. CIT(A) has held the penalty to be in the nature of a fine which is compensatory. The ld. CIT(A), to hold this, followed “Lachhmandas Mathuradas”, 254 ITR 799 (S.C.) and “Gillco Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT” 175 TTJ 81 (CHD). 33. Before us, the Department has not been able to make out any case as to how the ld. CIT(A) is wrong in holding the penalty in question to be compensatory payment. No decision contrary to those relied on by the ld. CIT(A) has been cited before us. Therefore, findin…

DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Stylam Industries Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

ITA 389/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 40ASection 5(2)Section 6Section 9(1)

…arising due to a penalty on the part of the assessee for not making deposit within the stipulated time. The ld. CIT(A) has held the penalty to be in the nature of a fine which is compensatory. The ld. CIT(A), to hold this, followed “Lachhmandas Mathuradas”, 254 ITR 799 (S.C.) and “Gillco Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT” 175 TTJ 81 (CHD). 33. Before us, the Department has not been able to make out any case as to how the ld. CIT(A) is wrong in holding the penalty in question to be compensatory payment. No decision contrary to those relied on by the ld. CIT(A) has been cited before us. Therefore, findin…

M/S Stylam Industries Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

ITA 960/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 40ASection 5(2)Section 6Section 9(1)

…arising due to a penalty on the part of the assessee for not making deposit within the stipulated time. The ld. CIT(A) has held the penalty to be in the nature of a fine which is compensatory. The ld. CIT(A), to hold this, followed “Lachhmandas Mathuradas”, 254 ITR 799 (S.C.) and “Gillco Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT” 175 TTJ 81 (CHD). 33. Before us, the Department has not been able to make out any case as to how the ld. CIT(A) is wrong in holding the penalty in question to be compensatory payment. No decision contrary to those relied on by the ld. CIT(A) has been cited before us. Therefore, findin…

DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Stylam Industries Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

ITA 1033/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 40ASection 5(2)Section 6Section 9(1)

…arising due to a penalty on the part of the assessee for not making deposit within the stipulated time. The ld. CIT(A) has held the penalty to be in the nature of a fine which is compensatory. The ld. CIT(A), to hold this, followed “Lachhmandas Mathuradas”, 254 ITR 799 (S.C.) and “Gillco Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT” 175 TTJ 81 (CHD). 33. Before us, the Department has not been able to make out any case as to how the ld. CIT(A) is wrong in holding the penalty in question to be compensatory payment. No decision contrary to those relied on by the ld. CIT(A) has been cited before us. Therefore, findin…

Sa Buildwell, Faridabad vs. ACIT Ward 2(1), Faridabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1423/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmasa Buildwell, Vs. Acit, H No. 412, Block B, Ward-2(1), Pathwari Colony, Faridabad Faridabad, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Ablfs6074N

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Shri V. K. Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…interest paid on late deposit of service tax is purely compensatory in nature and accordingly allowable as deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act. We place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lachmandas Mathuradas Vs. CIT reported in 254 ITR 799 (SC), wherein, the interest paid on arrears of sales tax was held to be compensatory in nature. Both sales tax and service tax, being an indirect tax, the analogy that could be drawn for sales tax could be clearly applied for service tax also. The ld AR before us further submitted that as per Service Tax law which is codified under Finance Act, 1…

ACIT 14 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. Shriram Chits Maharastra Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 66/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. Raghav MenonFor Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DR
Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2017-18 ACIT-14(1)(2), Shriram Chits Maharashtra Ltd., Room No. 455, 4th floor, Wockhardt Towers, Level 2, East Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Wing C2, G Block Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400020. Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. AAECS 7592 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Raghav Menon Revenue by : Mr. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 30/05/2024 : 03/06/2024 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This…

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Mahalaxmi Infracontract Private Limited, Ahmedabad

ITA 486/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 484, 485 & 486/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19) बनाम/ Assistant Commissioner Mahalaxmi Infracontract Of Income Tax Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-1(4), B-21, Corporate House, Ahmedabad Opp-Pakwan-Ii, S. G. Highway, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm4615E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri B. K. Patel, A.Rs. Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit. Dr Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 22/01/2024 & Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 31/05/2024 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri B. K. Patel
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…10-11). (ii) The decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata in the case of M/s. Emdee Digitronics Pvt. Ltd vs. Pr. CIT-4, Kolkata (ITA No. 361/Kol/2019). (iii) The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lachmandas Mathuradas V/s. CIT (SC) reported in 254 ITR 799. 9.2.4 The appellant has further stated that the AD had pointed out in para no. 7.3.4 at pg. no. 38 of assessment order that considering case of M/s. Govindam Clearing Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur), where it was held that interest paid in respect of statutory liabilities cannot be treated as business expenditure u/s.37(1), the position…

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Mahalaxmi Infracontract Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 485/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 484, 485 & 486/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19) बनाम/ Assistant Commissioner Mahalaxmi Infracontract Of Income Tax Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-1(4), B-21, Corporate House, Ahmedabad Opp-Pakwan-Ii, S. G. Highway, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm4615E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri B. K. Patel, A.Rs. Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit. Dr Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 22/01/2024 & Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 31/05/2024 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri B. K. Patel
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…10-11). (ii) The decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata in the case of M/s. Emdee Digitronics Pvt. Ltd vs. Pr. CIT-4, Kolkata (ITA No. 361/Kol/2019). (iii) The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lachmandas Mathuradas V/s. CIT (SC) reported in 254 ITR 799. 9.2.4 The appellant has further stated that the AD had pointed out in para no. 7.3.4 at pg. no. 38 of assessment order that considering case of M/s. Govindam Clearing Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur), where it was held that interest paid in respect of statutory liabilities cannot be treated as business expenditure u/s.37(1), the position…

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad vs. Mahalaxmi Infracontract Private Limited, Ahmedabad

ITA 484/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 484, 485 & 486/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19) बनाम/ Assistant Commissioner Mahalaxmi Infracontract Of Income Tax Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-1(4), B-21, Corporate House, Ahmedabad Opp-Pakwan-Ii, S. G. Highway, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm4615E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri B. K. Patel, A.Rs. Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit. Dr Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 22/01/2024 & Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 31/05/2024 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri B. K. Patel
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…10-11). (ii) The decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata in the case of M/s. Emdee Digitronics Pvt. Ltd vs. Pr. CIT-4, Kolkata (ITA No. 361/Kol/2019). (iii) The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lachmandas Mathuradas V/s. CIT (SC) reported in 254 ITR 799. 9.2.4 The appellant has further stated that the AD had pointed out in para no. 7.3.4 at pg. no. 38 of assessment order that considering case of M/s. Govindam Clearing Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur), where it was held that interest paid in respect of statutory liabilities cannot be treated as business expenditure u/s.37(1), the position…

P. Surendran, Trivandrum vs. ACIT Circle 1(2), Trivandrum

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

ITA 978/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm P. Surendran Sukanya Bhavan Asst. Cit-1(2) Vadayakkadu, Kunnukuzhy, P.O., Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Thiruvananthapuram-695 035

For Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(3)Section 40a

…te payment, which according to the Revenue is not an allowable 8 P. Surendran Sukanya Bhavan vs. Asst. CIT deduction. The ld. AR on the other hand, placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lachmandas Mathuradas vs. CIT [2002] 254 ITR 799 (SC) which has held that payment of interest towards sales tax is compensatory in nature and not penal. As this issue has been dealt with by the higher forums, we deem it fit to hold that the interest paid towards VAT/TOT is an allowable deduction as per the above said decision and, therefore, allow this ground of appeal raised by the assessee…

Idfc First Bank Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT-Corp Circle-2(2), Chennai

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

ITA 776/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 14A

…payment of interest is compensatory in nature and would not partake the character of penalty. Reference in this respect can be had to the decision of Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Luxmi Devi Sugar Mills P. Limited, reported in [1991] 188 ITR 41 and in case of Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Company v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, reported in (1980) 123 ITR 429. As the issue is covered, we allow the claim of assessee and hence, this issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed. 15. The next two issues i.e, Ground No.4 for claim of amortization of premium on HTM securities and vide ground No 5 cla…

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)

…he case of very same assessee. The relevant paras relied upon by the Ld. AR are reproduced below: “The issue of delay in the payment of service tax is directly covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lachmandas Mathura Vs. CIT reported in 254 ITR 799 in favour of assessee. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below: "The High Court has proceeded on the basis that the interest on arrears of sales tax is penal in nature and has rejected the contention of the assessee that it is compensatory in nature. In taking the said view the High Court has placed reliance on its Full Bench's d…

M/S Jaipur Colonizers & Developers, 404, 4Th Floor, Milestone Building, Gandhi Nagar Mode, Tonk Road vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 379/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agrawal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)

…d remittance of TDS is part and parcel of the business operations and the assessee has no right to utilize such monies collected from others on behalf of the government. The Tribunal relied on the judicial pronouncements of Lachmandas Mathuradas v. CIT (2002) 254 ITR 799, CIT Vs Chennai Properties and Investment Ltd. 1998 SCC Online Mad 1095: Velankani Information Systems Ltd. Vs CIT, 2018 SCC Online ITAT 17731 wherein the issues vis a vis disallowance of interest on TDS payments were addressed. The Tribunal observed that, "Payment of interest takes colour from the nature of the levy with reference to which such…

Apeejay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 119/KOL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R
Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…nfirmed. So far as the interest on delayed payment of Service tax is concerned, we notice that the same is allowable in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lachmandas Mathuradas v. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in [2002] 254 ITR 799 (SC). 34 I.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 I.T.A. No. 117/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. No. 118/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 I.T.A. No. 119/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Apeejay Pvt. Ltd. 36. Since the bifurcation of the alleged disallowance is not available on record, we direct the Assessing Officer to ca…

Apeejay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 118/KOL/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R
Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…nfirmed. So far as the interest on delayed payment of Service tax is concerned, we notice that the same is allowable in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lachmandas Mathuradas v. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in [2002] 254 ITR 799 (SC). 34 I.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 I.T.A. No. 117/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. No. 118/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 I.T.A. No. 119/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Apeejay Pvt. Ltd. 36. Since the bifurcation of the alleged disallowance is not available on record, we direct the Assessing Officer to ca…

Apeejay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 117/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R
Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…nfirmed. So far as the interest on delayed payment of Service tax is concerned, we notice that the same is allowable in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lachmandas Mathuradas v. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in [2002] 254 ITR 799 (SC). 34 I.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 I.T.A. No. 117/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. No. 118/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 I.T.A. No. 119/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Apeejay Pvt. Ltd. 36. Since the bifurcation of the alleged disallowance is not available on record, we direct the Assessing Officer to ca…

Apeejay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 116/KOL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R
Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…nfirmed. So far as the interest on delayed payment of Service tax is concerned, we notice that the same is allowable in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lachmandas Mathuradas v. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in [2002] 254 ITR 799 (SC). 34 I.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 I.T.A. No. 117/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. No. 118/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 I.T.A. No. 119/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Apeejay Pvt. Ltd. 36. Since the bifurcation of the alleged disallowance is not available on record, we direct the Assessing Officer to ca…