Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Company v. Commissioner of Income Tax

157 ITR 683High Court1986#5963 most cited

What is Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Company v. Commissioner of Income Tax authority for?

Payments classified as wharfage charges are not penal in nature and are allowable as a deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This decision is considered authoritative, even when contrasted with other High Court judgments.

19

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Company v. CIT · 157 ITR 683 · section 37 · wharfage charges · deduction · penal nature · business expenditure

Issues it is cited on

section 32(1)(iia)right to receivesection 194hsection 135csr expenditureretrospective amendmentadditional depreciationsection 32(1)mercantile system of accountingassessee in defaultsection 32disallowance u/s 14a

Judgments citing Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Company v. Commissioner of Income Tax

Sara International Pvt.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Add. CIT, Range-22, New Delhi

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

ITA 3307/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…gh Court in the case of PCIT vs. National Fertilizer Ltd. in ITA No.782/2016 dated 24/04/2017 wherein the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court after considering the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in 157 ITR 683 (Delhi), decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Nanhoomaljyoti Prasad Vs. CIT 123 ITR 269 (Allahabad) and after distinguishing the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court relied upon by the Ld. AO in the case of TISCO vs. Union of India dated 28/01/2014 had categorically held that the payment of Wharfage Charges is not penal in nat…

JCIT, Circle-22(1), New Delhi vs. Sara International Pvt.Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 1974/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…gh Court in the case of PCIT vs. National Fertilizer Ltd. in ITA No.782/2016 dated 24/04/2017 wherein the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court after considering the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in 157 ITR 683 (Delhi), decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Nanhoomaljyoti Prasad Vs. CIT 123 ITR 269 (Allahabad) and after distinguishing the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court relied upon by the Ld. AO in the case of TISCO vs. Union of India dated 28/01/2014 had categorically held that the payment of Wharfage Charges is not penal in nat…

Addi. CIT Special Range - 6, New Delhi vs. National Fertilizers Ltd., Noida

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7966/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 145Section 36(1)Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “E”: DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.7966/Del./2019 Assessment Year 2016-17 The Special Range-6 National Fertilizers Ltd., Corporate Office, A-11, New Delhi vs. Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201301 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR For Assessee : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Shri Aman Garg, CA Date of Hearing : 13.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 06.01.2023 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M. : This appeal filed by the Revenue has been directed against the Order of…

National Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range- 18, New Delhi

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

ITA 1148/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedia N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Aman Garg, C. AFor Respondent: [CIT] – D. R
Section 43B

…e to deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. The said question already stands answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue by the judgment of this Court in Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Company v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1986) 157 ITR 683 (Delhi) and of the Allahabad High Court in Nanhoomal Jyoti Prasad v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1980) 123 ITR 269 (All). 5. However, learned counsel for the Revenue seeks to rely on the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (decision dated 28th January 2014 in SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 65/1997). Ha…

ACIT, Circle- 17(2), New Delhi vs. National Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1041/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedia N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Aman Garg, C. AFor Respondent: [CIT] – D. R
Section 43B

…e to deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. The said question already stands answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue by the judgment of this Court in Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Company v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1986) 157 ITR 683 (Delhi) and of the Allahabad High Court in Nanhoomal Jyoti Prasad v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1980) 123 ITR 269 (All). 5. However, learned counsel for the Revenue seeks to rely on the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (decision dated 28th January 2014 in SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 65/1997). Ha…

The ITO, Ward-1(2)(4), Vadodara vs. Shri Pradeepshankar B. Jha, Vadodara

In the result, ground no. 4 of Revenue ‘s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3525/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bhavna P. Yashorai CIT D.R.&

…ge/ wharfage charges after reducing the charges waived by the Principals. On the first issue, the Mumbai ITAT in the case of Imcola Exports Ltd. in ITA No. 974/Mum/2009, following the Delhi High Court decision in the case of Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Company Ltd. 157 ITR 683 (Del) have held that demurrage is a charge by way of compensation and includes amount chargeable for failure to storage and transport goods by contractor for its delayed clearance. It is not a fine paid to the port authorities for any criminal act but is a compensation for the use of port facilities beyond the free period allowed under the rules.…

The ACIT, Circle-2(2), Baroda vs. Shri Pradeepshankar B. Jha, Baroda

In the result, ground no. 4 of Revenue ‘s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1650/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bhavna P. Yashorai CIT D.R.&

…ge/ wharfage charges after reducing the charges waived by the Principals. On the first issue, the Mumbai ITAT in the case of Imcola Exports Ltd. in ITA No. 974/Mum/2009, following the Delhi High Court decision in the case of Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Company Ltd. 157 ITR 683 (Del) have held that demurrage is a charge by way of compensation and includes amount chargeable for failure to storage and transport goods by contractor for its delayed clearance. It is not a fine paid to the port authorities for any criminal act but is a compensation for the use of port facilities beyond the free period allowed under the rules.…

The ITO, Ward-2(4), Baroda vs. Shri Pradeepshankar B. Jha, Baroda

In the result, ground no. 4 of Revenue ‘s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1115/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bhavna P. Yashorai CIT D.R.&

…ge/ wharfage charges after reducing the charges waived by the Principals. On the first issue, the Mumbai ITAT in the case of Imcola Exports Ltd. in ITA No. 974/Mum/2009, following the Delhi High Court decision in the case of Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Company Ltd. 157 ITR 683 (Del) have held that demurrage is a charge by way of compensation and includes amount chargeable for failure to storage and transport goods by contractor for its delayed clearance. It is not a fine paid to the port authorities for any criminal act but is a compensation for the use of port facilities beyond the free period allowed under the rules.…

ACIT, Circle- 17(2), New Delhi vs. National Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 3698/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 145Section 14ASection 32Section 37(1)Section 40

…e to deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. The said question already stands answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue by the judgment of this Court in Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Company v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1986) 157 ITR 683 (Delhi) and of the Allahabad High Court in Nanhoomal Jyoti Prasad v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1980) 123 ITR 269 (All). 5. However, learned counsel for the Revenue seeks to rely on the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (decision dated 28th January 2014 in SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 65/1997). Ha…

ACIT, Circle- 17(2), New Delhi vs. National Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 3697/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 145Section 14ASection 32Section 37(1)Section 40

…e to deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. The said question already stands answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue by the judgment of this Court in Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Company v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1986) 157 ITR 683 (Delhi) and of the Allahabad High Court in Nanhoomal Jyoti Prasad v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1980) 123 ITR 269 (All). 5. However, learned counsel for the Revenue seeks to rely on the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (decision dated 28th January 2014 in SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 65/1997). Ha…

National Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 17(2), New Delhi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 3438/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 145Section 14ASection 32Section 37(1)Section 40

…e to deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. The said question already stands answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue by the judgment of this Court in Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Company v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1986) 157 ITR 683 (Delhi) and of the Allahabad High Court in Nanhoomal Jyoti Prasad v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1980) 123 ITR 269 (All). 5. However, learned counsel for the Revenue seeks to rely on the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (decision dated 28th January 2014 in SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 65/1997). Ha…

National Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 17(2), New Delhi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 3437/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 145Section 14ASection 32Section 37(1)Section 40

…e to deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. The said question already stands answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue by the judgment of this Court in Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Company v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1986) 157 ITR 683 (Delhi) and of the Allahabad High Court in Nanhoomal Jyoti Prasad v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1980) 123 ITR 269 (All). 5. However, learned counsel for the Revenue seeks to rely on the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (decision dated 28th January 2014 in SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 65/1997). Ha…

M/S. National Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3367/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Pundir, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 14ASection 37

…e to deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. The said question already stands answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue by the judgment of this Court in Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Company v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1986) 157 ITR 683 (Delhi) and of the Allahabad High Court in Nanhoomal Jyoti Prasad v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1980) 123 ITR 269 (All.) 5. However, learned counsel for the Revenue seeks to reply of the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (decision dated 28th January, 2014 in SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 65/1997).…

Pr. Commisssioner of Income Tax-06 vs. National Fertilizer Limited

ITA/551/2016HC Delhi24 Apr 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 260Section 37(1)Section 43B

…ble to deduction under Section 37(1) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. The said question already stands answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue by the judgment of this Court in Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Company v. Commissioner Of Income Tax,(1986) 157 ITR 683 (Delhi) and of the Allahabad High Court in Nanhoomal Jyoti Prasad v. Commissioner OfIncome Tax, (1980) 123 ITR 269 (All). 5. However, learned counsel for the Revenue seeks to rely on the judgment ofthe Rajasthan High Court in Tata Iron &Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union ofIndia (decision dated 28th January 2014 in SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 65/1997). Having…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 vs. National Fertilizers Ltd

ITA/784/2016HC Delhi24 Apr 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 260Section 37(1)Section 43B

…ble to deduction under Section 37(1) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. The said question already stands answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue by the judgment of this Court in Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Company v. Commissioner Of Income Tax,(1986) 157 ITR 683 (Delhi) and of the Allahabad High Court in Nanhoomal Jyoti Prasad v. Commissioner OfIncome Tax, (1980) 123 ITR 269 (All). 5. However, learned counsel for the Revenue seeks to rely on the judgment ofthe Rajasthan High Court in Tata Iron &Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union ofIndia (decision dated 28th January 2014 in SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 65/1997). Having…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 vs. National Fertilizers Ltd

ITA/782/2016HC Delhi24 Apr 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 260Section 37(1)Section 43B

…ble to deduction under Section 37(1) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. The said question already stands answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue by the judgment of this Court in Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Company v. Commissioner Of Income Tax,(1986) 157 ITR 683 (Delhi) and of the Allahabad High Court in Nanhoomal Jyoti Prasad v. Commissioner OfIncome Tax, (1980) 123 ITR 269 (All). 5. However, learned counsel for the Revenue seeks to rely on the judgment ofthe Rajasthan High Court in Tata Iron &Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union ofIndia (decision dated 28th January 2014 in SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 65/1997). Having…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S National Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for all the Assessment Years

ITA 3947/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR
Section 145Section 37(1)

…t Year 2009-10 in I.T.A.No. 4076/Del/2013. The Tribunal for Assessment Year 2009- 10, has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court as well as the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Mahlaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1986) 157 ITR 683 (Del.) and Imcola (Exports) Ltd., in I.T.A.No.974/Mum/2009 respectively. The relevant findings are given in para 7 page 4 of the said order and read as under: “7. Ground no.2 is against the deletion of addition of Rs.2,36,00,000/- being demurrage & wharfage charges. These charges are paid to the railways towards delay in loading and unloading ope…

M/S National Fertilizer Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for all the Assessment Years

ITA 3520/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR
Section 145Section 37(1)

…t Year 2009-10 in I.T.A.No. 4076/Del/2013. The Tribunal for Assessment Year 2009- 10, has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court as well as the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Mahlaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1986) 157 ITR 683 (Del.) and Imcola (Exports) Ltd., in I.T.A.No.974/Mum/2009 respectively. The relevant findings are given in para 7 page 4 of the said order and read as under: “7. Ground no.2 is against the deletion of addition of Rs.2,36,00,000/- being demurrage & wharfage charges. These charges are paid to the railways towards delay in loading and unloading ope…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S National Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3121/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)

…question is not the penalty or fine for violation of any statute. It is compensatory in nature. The issue stands covered by the following decisions. i) Nanhoomal Jyoti Prasad vs. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 269 (All.) ii) Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1986) 157 ITR 683 (Del.) iii) Imcola Exports Ltd. ITA 974/Mum/2009. Respectfuly following the same we uphold the finding of the First Appellate Authority and dismiss the ground of revneue.” 7.1 We find that the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 4076/Del/2013 dated 20.5.2015 (AY 2009-10). We fur…