How many judgments cite Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. v. CIT?

70 judgments on BharatTax cite Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. v. CIT (123 ITR 429), spanning 1993 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 37, Section 115BAA, Section 69C, Section 153C, Section 69A.

Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. v. CIT

123 ITR 429Supreme Court of India1980#1603 most cited

What is Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. v. CIT authority for?

Payments that are compensatory in nature, such as interest paid for the delayed payment of statutory dues like cess, are an allowable business deduction under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act. Such payments are not considered a penalty for an infringement of law.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 1993 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. v. CIT · section 37(1) · compensatory interest deduction · delayed payment interest · business expenditure allowability · penalty versus compensatory · income tax deduction · 123 ITR 429 · interest on statutory dues · deductibility of fines and penalties

Also reported as

16 CTR 198

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 37 Section 115BAA Section 69C Section 153C Section 69A Section 250 Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 10(2)(xv)explanation to section 37 prohibited by law section 201(1a)block of assets section 37(1)profits and gains of business or profession put to use revenue expenditure section 30 section 37 capital expenditure

Judgments citing Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. v. CIT

Frost & Sullivan (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1259/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92Section 92C

…hen Section does not survive but in any case the interest of late payment of service tax is not penal in nature and same is compensatory. Now this issue is very well settled by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills vs. CIT 123 ITR 429 and also by certain judgments of M/s. Front & Sullivan (India) Pvt. Ltd. this Tribunal. Thus, on merits also, the disallowance is uncalled for. 25 In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 18th July, 2023. (GAGAN GOYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 18/ 07/2023 KARUNA, sr.ps Cop…

DCIT 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Frost and Sullivan (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1148/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92Section 92C

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)

…:  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 observed that such sum related to payment of interest on late payment of TDS was neither added by the assessee in the taxable income for the year nor the AO had added the same while completing the original assessm…

Universal Energies Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 18(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5298/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: The Ld. Cit (A).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 201Section 30Section 37(1)Section 40

…7/Kol/2016] [at page no. 33] • IDS Next Business Solutions (P) Ltd. (ITA No. 510/Bang/2018] [at page no. 38] • Remfry & Sagar Consultants (P) Ltd. (ITA no. 5887/Del/2011) • Zoom Communication Ltd. (ITA No. 414/Del/2014) • Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. [1980] 123 ITR 429 (SC) • Luxmi Devi Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. [1991] 188 ITR 41 (SC) • Kaypee Mechanical India (P) Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 186/2014] • Prakash Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. [1993] 67 Taxman 546 (SC)” 8. Per contra, ld. DR for the Revenue did not dispute the proposition that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by various case laws mentioned herein abo…

Asianet Satellite Communications P. Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The Pr CIT, Trivandrum

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

ITA 5/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Asianet Satellite Vs. Pcit, Communications Pvt. Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram. 2A, 2Nd Floor, Carnival Technopark, Technopark, Kazhakuttom, Karyavattom, P. O., Thiruvananthapuram. Pan : Aaeca 5548 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Raghunathan S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. Rajasekhar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH : COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/s. Asianet Satellite Vs. PCIT, Communications Pvt. Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram. 2A, 2nd Floor, Carnival Technopark, Technopark, Kazhakuttom, Karyavattom, P. O., Thiruvananthapuram. PAN : AAECA 5548 E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Raghunathan S, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. M. Rajasekhar, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 05.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, Accountant Member This is an appeal against the order of…

DCIT, Circle-11(1), New Delhi vs. Holisol Logistics P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands

ITA 4361/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Ravi Kant Choudhary, Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Mehra, Ld. CA

Section 250Section 36Section 46ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

…ourt of Himachal Pradesh in the case of CIT vs. H.P. State Forest Corporation (2010) 320 ITR (HP) while relying upon the 12 DCIT Vs Holisol Logistrics P. Ltd judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Vs. CIT(1980) 123 ITR 429 and Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. (supra)also held “where the payment of interest is automatic for delayed payment, the imposition is compensatory in nature and there can be no manner of doubt that in view of the decision of Apex Court, the interest payment for delayed payment of tax is deductible under section 37.” Consequently, the ld. Commis…

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)

…or breach of law or prohibited in law alone is not allowable and in other cases, the payment of interest, more particularly in respect of TDS is only compensatory in nature. Reliance was placed on the decisions reported in Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Vs. CIT 123 ITR 429 (SC) and CIT Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., (2009) 183 TAXMAN 186 (Kar). It was further pleaded that interest paid on TDS is not interest on income tax and further proposition, reliance was placed on decision in Taksheel Solutions Limited Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 1768/Hyd/2012. 4. Ld. CIT(A), however, did not agree with the submissions made by t…

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)

…obligation under the Income-tax Act, which is calculated with reference to the tax on income, cannot be allowed as deduction". 11. Before holding so, the court considered the decision of the apex court in the case of Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 429, a decision rendered by three learned judges of the apex court and held that the ratio of that judgment had no application to the case before it in the case of Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 230 ITR 733. The assessee in the case of Mahalakskmi Sugar Mills Co. had claimed deduction of interest paid on arrears of sugarcane cess.…

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)

…isallowed treating interest as penalty for violation of law 21-22 CIT(A) — paragraph 4.3 allowed on the ground that interest is compensatory in 22 nature Submission: CIT(A)'s conclusion is supported by the following judgments: Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. v CIT, 123 ITR 429 (SC) Interest under U.P.Sugar Cane Cess Act Lachmandas Mathuradas v CIT, 254 ITR 799 (SC)- interest on arrears of sales tax CIT v Kaypee Mechanical India (P) Ltd. [2014] 45 taxmann.com 363 (Guj) -interest under Service Tax provisions allowed M/s. ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd., CIT v Delhi Automobiles 272 ITR 381 (Del) — sales tax penalty for de…

A.C.I.T., Circle-3(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 67/KOL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 40Section 68Section 80I

…following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lachmandas Mathuradas vs. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in [2002] 254 ITR 799 (SC) and in the case of Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in [1980] 123 ITR 429 (SC) holding that such interest paid on service tax and VAT are compensatory in nature and not in the nature of penalty and, therefore, disallowance of such interest cannot be made u/s 37(1) of the Act. As far as the remaining amount is concerned, we find that ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance for interest on TDS of Rs.13,486/- and penalt…

M/S Salarpuria Properties Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., CC-3(2), Kolkata

ITA 2492/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 40Section 68Section 80I

M/S. Foot Prints Collateral Services Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, ground 6 and 7 are allowed

ITA 1872/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Sri.Nischal B, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM ITA No.1872/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/s.Foot Prints Collateral The Assistant Commissioner Services Private Limited of Income-tax, Circle 3(1)(1) v. Bangalore. No.216/2-B, 3rd Floor, Plot No.2 Nagavara Palya, C.V.Raman Nagar Bengaluru – 560 093. PAN : AABCF0417C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : --- None --- Respondent by : Sri.Nischal B, Addl.CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 07.01.2022 Date of Hearing : 06.01.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, JM : This appeal at the instanc…

Tiriyogi Narayan Singh, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-28, Kolkata

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

ITA 245/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Tiriyogi Narayan Singh Acit, Circle-28, Kolkata C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Vs. Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. Pan: Apmps8395D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit. Date Of Hearing : 13.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2022 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Act Dated 26.07.2021 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Relevant To Ay 2014-15. 2. The Issue Raised In Ground No. 1 Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) Upholding The Order Of Ao Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs. 24,286/- On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Employee’S Contribution To Provident Fund & Esi.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 43B

…of the assessee in the payment of statutory dues and therefore not allowable. 11. After hearing parties and perused the material on record, we find that issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the two decisions namely Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. vs CIT 123 ITR 429 (SC) and Lachmandas Mathuradas vs CIT 254 ITR 799 (SC). In the first decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that interest paid u/s 3(3) of the Cess Act cannot be described as a penalty paid for an infringement of law whereas in the second decision, the interest paid the assessee to the Sales-tax Department on arrears of sales tax is held to…

ACIT, Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. Tcg Urban Infrastructure Holdings Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

ITA 2584/KOL/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Dr. M.L.Meena, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं.य/ ITA Nos.2584 to 2588/Kol/2019 Assessment Years:2004-05, ’05- 06, ’06-07,’07-08 & ’09-10 बनाम / ACIT,Cir-2(1), Kolkata M/s. TCG Urban Circle-2(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Infrastructure Holdings Pvt. V/s. P-7 Chowringhee Square, Ltd. (Earlier known as TCG Kolkata-700 069. Infrastructure Holdings Ltd.) Ground Fl., Bldg Beta, Bengal Intelligent Park, Salt Lake Electronics Complex, Block EP & GP, Sector V, Salt Lake, Kolkata. PAN: AADCS8821M अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent…

M/S Inflow Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, ground Nos

ITA 3339/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Nitish Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

…the I.T.Act. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal relied on various judicial pronouncements. The relevant finding of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal, reads as follow:- “5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. vs. CIT, 123 ITR 429(SC) have held that interest for delay payment of statutory dues is an allowable deduction u/s.37(1) of the Act. Same view has also been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lachmandas Mathuradas vs CIT, 254 ITR 799(sc). We also find that Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills…

M/S Inflow Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, ground Nos

ITA 3338/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Nitish Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

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)

…ur from the cess which is payable, that it was an indirect tax which had to be paid in the course of carrying on business. 12. Learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the judgment of the apex court in the case of Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. [1980] 123 ITR 429. As pointed out by the apex court in its later judgment in the case of Bharat Commerce and Industries [1998] 230 ITR 733, the cess which was considered in the case of Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. [1980] 123 ITR 429 was an indirect tax payable in the course of the business of the assessee and the interest paid on the arrears of the cess took colour…

DCIT, Circle- 20(1), New Delhi vs. Planman Hr (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5152/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Vs Planman Hr (P) Ltd., Circle-20(1), 48, Community Centre, New Delhi. Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi. Pan: Aafcp0981K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Farhat Khan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th May, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, Relating Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The First Ground Raised By The Revenue Reads As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Law In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 54,31,041/- Made By The Ao Without Appreciating The Fact That The Amount Has Been Paid By Assessee Was On Account Of Infraction The Basis Of Explanation To Section 37 Of The Act Which Says That Any Expenditure Incurred By An Assessee For Any Purpose Which Is An Offence Or Which Is Prohibited By Law Shall Not Be Deemed To Have Been Incurred For The Purpose Of Business Or Profession & No Deduction Or Allowance Shall Be Made In Respect Of Such Expenditure.”

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Farhat Khan, Sr. DR

Section 37

…on, the interest paid for late deposit of the same is also a permissible deduction and should be allowed in the same manner. Reliance in this respect is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. v. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 429. Considering these facts, the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer was unjustified and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 15,50,903/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of interest paid on service tax is deleted." The payment of interest on late deposit of service tax with the government account…

DCIT, CC-1(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Rungta Mines Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2199/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Ms. Madhumita Roy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A No.2199/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Acit, Cc-1(3), Kolkata Vs. M/S Rungta Mines Pvt. Ltd. 8A, Express Tower, 42A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr6463N (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Paul, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37

…ructure at the loading station. I also Htnd that the issue is squarely covered by the various judicial decisions placed on record by the Ld AR in course of the appellate proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in the case of Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills CO (1980) 123 ITR 429 laid down the basic principle for deciding as to whether a claim of damages or penalty was allowable u/s. 37(1) : whenever any statutory impost paid by an assessee by way of damages or penalty or interest is claimed as an allowable expenditure u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, the assessing authority is required to examine the scheme of the provi…

M/S. Gem Electro Mechanicals Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Jaipur

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

ITA 2/JPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2020AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul , Addl. CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 8(1)

…es tax is compensatory in nature and not penal. 4.11. Reliance is placed on the below mentioned judicial pronouncements: - Supreme Court 4.11.i Lachmandas Mathuradas [2002] 122 Taxman 828 (SC) Enclosed Page 8) 4.11.ii Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 429 (SC) Jurisdictional High Court 4.11.iii Udaipur Distillery [1986] 24 TAXMAN 282 (Raj — HC) (Enclosed Page 12) 4.11.iv Rajasthan Central Stores (P.) Ltd. [1984] 19 Taxman 163(Rajasthan HC) 4.11.v C.G. Sanghi [1984] 18 Taxman 380 (Rajasthan HC) 4.11.vi Western Indian State Motors [1987] 163 ITR 194 (Rajasthan HC) 4.12. Hon'ble Jurisdictional High…