MTA Coal Mines Ltd., Bangalore Page 49 of 55 (b) Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

129 TTJ 81Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#6645 most cited
17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 24asection 35esection 75section 269uasection 52interest under section 201(1a)section 32(1)(ii)commercial rightssection 192section 32(1)section 269enduring benefit

Judgments citing MTA Coal Mines Ltd., Bangalore Page 49 of 55 (b) Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. K S CAPITAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 241/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Anuradha (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 37

…ax Act, 1961. Some of the decisions are as under, i) Go Airlines (India) Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- 5(1)(1), Mumbai [2021] 126 taxmann.com 152 (Mumbai - Trib.) ii) Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Messee Dusseldorf India (P.) Ltd. [2010] 129 TTJ 81 (DELHI) (UO) 5 DCIT vs. K S Capital Services Private Ltd. iii) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(2) Vs Sri Radhakrishna Shipping Ltd [2019] 110 taxmann.com 62 (Mumbai – iv) Velankani Information Systems Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle- 7(1)(2), Bangalore [2018] 97 taxmann.com 599 (Bangalore - Trib.) Therefor…

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2139/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

…d Allwyn Metal Works Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 113 ITA Nos.2135 to 2139/Bang/2018 M/s. Karnataka EMTA Coal Mines Ltd., Bangalore Page 49 of 55 (b) Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 201 TTS 684 (SC). (c) DCIT v. Messee Duysseldorf India (P) Ltd. (2010) 129 TTJ 81 T (Del.). (d) Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Prem Nath Motors (Pvt.) Ltd. on 5 September. 2001 Equivalent citations: 2002 253 ITR 705 Delhi Findings: 19. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that this issue is squarely covered by earlier decision i…

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2138/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

…d Allwyn Metal Works Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 113 ITA Nos.2135 to 2139/Bang/2018 M/s. Karnataka EMTA Coal Mines Ltd., Bangalore Page 49 of 55 (b) Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 201 TTS 684 (SC). (c) DCIT v. Messee Duysseldorf India (P) Ltd. (2010) 129 TTJ 81 T (Del.). (d) Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Prem Nath Motors (Pvt.) Ltd. on 5 September. 2001 Equivalent citations: 2002 253 ITR 705 Delhi Findings: 19. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that this issue is squarely covered by earlier decision i…

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2137/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

…d Allwyn Metal Works Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 113 ITA Nos.2135 to 2139/Bang/2018 M/s. Karnataka EMTA Coal Mines Ltd., Bangalore Page 49 of 55 (b) Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 201 TTS 684 (SC). (c) DCIT v. Messee Duysseldorf India (P) Ltd. (2010) 129 TTJ 81 T (Del.). (d) Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Prem Nath Motors (Pvt.) Ltd. on 5 September. 2001 Equivalent citations: 2002 253 ITR 705 Delhi Findings: 19. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that this issue is squarely covered by earlier decision i…

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2136/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

…d Allwyn Metal Works Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 113 ITA Nos.2135 to 2139/Bang/2018 M/s. Karnataka EMTA Coal Mines Ltd., Bangalore Page 49 of 55 (b) Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 201 TTS 684 (SC). (c) DCIT v. Messee Duysseldorf India (P) Ltd. (2010) 129 TTJ 81 T (Del.). (d) Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Prem Nath Motors (Pvt.) Ltd. on 5 September. 2001 Equivalent citations: 2002 253 ITR 705 Delhi Findings: 19. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that this issue is squarely covered by earlier decision i…

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2135/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

…d Allwyn Metal Works Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 113 ITA Nos.2135 to 2139/Bang/2018 M/s. Karnataka EMTA Coal Mines Ltd., Bangalore Page 49 of 55 (b) Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 201 TTS 684 (SC). (c) DCIT v. Messee Duysseldorf India (P) Ltd. (2010) 129 TTJ 81 T (Del.). (d) Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Prem Nath Motors (Pvt.) Ltd. on 5 September. 2001 Equivalent citations: 2002 253 ITR 705 Delhi Findings: 19. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that this issue is squarely covered by earlier decision i…

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)

…ed that there is nothing on record to suggest that these payments of interest on sales tax and Service tax were penal in nature. The ld. Commissioner also quoted the judgments of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Messee Dusseldorf of India Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 129 TTJ 81(Del) and in the case of Remfry& Sugar Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 5887/Del/2011), wherein it was held that interest on service tax is compensatory in nature and has the same characters as service tax and therefore, it is an allowable deduction. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prakash Cotton Mills P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1993) 2…

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

…do so, that he had to expend the said amount, though it was not his primary liability. Be that as it may, this cannot be stated to be a penalty for infraction of law.” 5.6 The Delhi Tribunal in the case of CIT v. Messee Dusseldorf India (P) Ltd. reported in 129 TTJ 81 (Del.) had held that interest paid for delayed payment of service tax is compensatory in nature and has the same character as service tax and therefore allowable as a deduction. 5.7 In view of the above judicial pronouncements, we hold that the interest on delayed payment of service tax is compensatory in nature and not penal in nature. Therefore…

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

…4. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) deleted the disallowance holding that the interest on late payment of service tax is compensatory in nature in view of the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Messee Dusseldorf India (P) Ltd. (2010) 129 TTJ 81 T (Del). 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld. DR heavily relied on the order of the AO. 2 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, referring to the following decisions, submitted that interest paid on late deposit of service tax is a permissible deduction under the I…

DCIT CC-4(2), CENTRAL RANGE-4, MUMBAI vs. VAKRANGEE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2215/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Vakrangee Limited Central Circle – 4(2) Vakrangee Corporate House Central Range – 4 Plot No. 93, Road No. 16 R.No. 1918, 19Th Floor Midc, Marol, Andheri (E) Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 093 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacv9920D

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Harkamal Sohi Sandhu
Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax v. M/s. Vakrangee Limited Central Circle – 4(2) Vakrangee Corporate House Central Range – 4 Plot No. 93, Road No. 16 R.No. 1918, 19th Floor MIDC, Marol, Andheri (E) Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 093 Mumbai – 400 021 PAN: AAACV9920D (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 158/MUM/2019 [ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.2215/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2014-15)] M/s. Vakrangee Limited v. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Vakrangee Corporate Hou…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(2), CENTRAL RANGE-4, MUMBAI vs. M/S.SRI RADHKRISHNA SHIPPING LIMITED, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 691/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhandeputy Commissioner Of Income M/S Sri Radhakrishna Tax, Central Circle-4(2), Shipping Ltd., R. No.1918, 19Th Floor, 40-Goa Street, Off Shahid Bhagat Vs. Air India Building, Singh Road, Ballard Estate, Fort, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai-400 021 Pan – Aabcs5273M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Ojha, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Mihir Prakash Shah, A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 41(1)

…e was placed by the ld. A.R on the orders of the coordinate benches of ITAT, Delhi, viz. (i) M/s Remfry & Sagar Consultants Vs. ACIT, Circle 15(1), New Delhi (ITA No,.5887/Del/2011, dated 20.07.2012) ; and (ii) DCIT Vs. Messee Dusseldorf India (P) Ltd. (2010) 129 TTJ 81 (Del). Accordingly, it was submitted by the ld. A.R, that as the CIT(A) after duly appreciating the facts of the case in the backdrop of the settled position of law had rightly vacated the additions/disallowance made by the A.O, therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was bereft of any force of law and did not merit acceptance. 7. We have heard…

GMR HYDERABAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2189/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaranassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.V Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 30

…d remittance of service tax is compensatory in nature and hence allowable as deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act. He submitted that the similar view has been taken by the Delhi Bench of Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Messee Dusseldorf India (P) Ltd., page (2010) 129 TTJ 81 (Delhi)/(UO). 18. We have heard ld DR and perused the record. We noticed that the ld CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance by following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd., (Supra). However, a perusal of the said decision would show that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the cas…

B S R & CO,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 11(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1485/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blem/S. B.S.R & Co. V. A.C.I.T Circle – 11(2) Lodha Excellus, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Apollo Mills Compound, M.K. Road, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 011 Pan: Aaafb 9852 F (Appellant) (Respondent) A.C.I.T Circle – 11(2) V. M/S. B.S.R & Co. Room No. 479, 4Th Floor Lodha Excellus, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Apollo Mills Compound, Mumbai-400 020 N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai – 400 011 Pan: Aaafb 9852 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Arijit Chakravarty & Shri Abhishek Tilak Department By : Shri Saurabh Deshpande

For Appellant: Shri Arijit Chakravarty &For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande
Section 40

…ax observing that the same is penal in nature and not an allowable expenditure and the same is upheld by the Ld.CIT(A). Ld. Counsel for the assessee placing reliance on the decision of the Delhi Bench in the case of DCIT v. Messee Dusseldorf India (P.) Ltd., [129 TTJ 81] and the decision in the case of M/s. Remfry & Sugar Consultants v. ACIT in ITA.No. 5887/Del/2011 dated 20.07.2012, submitted that the Tribunal considered similar issue as to whether the interest paid for delay in payment of service tax would amount to penalty for infraction of law or is only compensatory and allowable as deduction in computing th…

ACIT 11(2), MUMBAI vs. BSR & CO., MUMBAI

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

ITA 1068/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blem/S. B.S.R & Co. V. A.C.I.T Circle – 11(2) Lodha Excellus, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Apollo Mills Compound, M.K. Road, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 011 Pan: Aaafb 9852 F (Appellant) (Respondent) A.C.I.T Circle – 11(2) V. M/S. B.S.R & Co. Room No. 479, 4Th Floor Lodha Excellus, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Apollo Mills Compound, Mumbai-400 020 N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai – 400 011 Pan: Aaafb 9852 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Arijit Chakravarty & Shri Abhishek Tilak Department By : Shri Saurabh Deshpande

For Appellant: Shri Arijit Chakravarty &For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande
Section 40

…ax observing that the same is penal in nature and not an allowable expenditure and the same is upheld by the Ld.CIT(A). Ld. Counsel for the assessee placing reliance on the decision of the Delhi Bench in the case of DCIT v. Messee Dusseldorf India (P.) Ltd., [129 TTJ 81] and the decision in the case of M/s. Remfry & Sugar Consultants v. ACIT in ITA.No. 5887/Del/2011 dated 20.07.2012, submitted that the Tribunal considered similar issue as to whether the interest paid for delay in payment of service tax would amount to penalty for infraction of law or is only compensatory and allowable as deduction in computing th…

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…

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)

…uction. It is pertinent to note that any interest payment is compensatory in nature and therefore cannot be said to be a penal expenditure. The ld. AR relied on the decision of the Tribunal, Delhi Bench in the case of Messee Dusseldorf India (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [129 TTJ 81] regarding the interest on service tax. He also relied in respect of interest on TDS, on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Arthur Anderson & Co. vs. ACIT [190 Taxman 279]. 29. On the other hand, ld.D.R relied on the order of DRP. 30. After hearing both the parties with regard to deduction of interest on TDS and service tax and…

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)

…uction. It is pertinent to note that any interest payment is compensatory in nature and therefore cannot be said to be a penal expenditure. The ld. AR relied on the decision of the Tribunal, Delhi Bench in the case of Messee Dusseldorf India (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [129 TTJ 81] regarding the interest on service tax. He also relied in respect of interest on TDS, on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Arthur Anderson & Co. vs. ACIT [190 Taxman 279]. 29. On the other hand, ld.D.R relied on the order of DRP. 30. After hearing both the parties with regard to deduction of interest on TDS and service tax and…