Nanhoomal Jyoti Prasad v. Commissioner of Income Tax

123 ITR 269High Court1980#5935 most cited

What is Nanhoomal Jyoti Prasad v. Commissioner of Income Tax authority for?

Demurrage paid by a trader is by way of compensation for the use of port facilities beyond the allowed period, not a penalty for violating a law, and is therefore deductible as a business expense.

19

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Nanhoomal Jyoti Prasad v. CIT · 123 ITR 269 · demurrage · business expenditure · Section 37 · allowance of deduction · liquidated damages · compensation · use of port facilities

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 1989Section 37(1)Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act

Issues it is cited on

section 32(1)(iia)right to receivesection 194hexplanation to section 37section 135csr expenditureretrospective amendmentadditional depreciationsection 32(1)mercantile system of accountingassessee in defaultsection 37(1)

Judgments citing Nanhoomal Jyoti Prasad v. Commissioner of Income Tax

ACIT Circle-1, Dhanbad vs. M/S. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 95/RAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

…murrage was incidental to business and its impact was to increase the cost to the assessed of the goods transported. Shri S. N. Kumar, learned counsel for the assessed, referred to a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Nanhoomal Jyoti Prasad v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 269. In this case, the port authorities charged demurrage for delay in clearing the authorities. It was held that when demurrage is paid by a trader, he pays the amount for storage and safe custody of the goods by the port authorities or the railways and also an additional amount for delayed clearance and the payment essentially is by way of liquidat…

DCIT Circle-1, Dhanbad vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Dhanbad

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 103/RAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

…murrage was incidental to business and its impact was to increase the cost to the assessed of the goods transported. Shri S. N. Kumar, learned counsel for the assessed, referred to a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Nanhoomal Jyoti Prasad v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 269. In this case, the port authorities charged demurrage for delay in clearing the authorities. It was held that when demurrage is paid by a trader, he pays the amount for storage and safe custody of the goods by the port authorities or the railways and also an additional amount for delayed clearance and the payment essentially is by way of liquidat…

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

…in 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 nature and would be allowable as deduction u/s 37 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) appreciated the contentio…

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

…in 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 nature and would be allowable as deduction u/s 37 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) appreciated the contentio…

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)

…ur 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). Having perused the said judgment, the Court is not persuaded to take a view different from that earlier taken by thi…

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

…Cross I.T.A. Nos. 1148 & 1041/Del/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “E” : DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A N D SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No.1041/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 ACIT, M/s. National Fertilizers Ltd., Circle : 17 (2), Core-III, Scope Complex, बनाम New Delhi. 7, Institutional Area, Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi–110003 PAN No. AAACN0189N A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No.1148/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. National Fertilizers Ltd., ACIT, Core-III, Scope Complex, Circle : 17 (2), बनाम 7, Institutional…

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

…Cross I.T.A. Nos. 1148 & 1041/Del/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “E” : DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A N D SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No.1041/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 ACIT, M/s. National Fertilizers Ltd., Circle : 17 (2), Core-III, Scope Complex, बनाम New Delhi. 7, Institutional Area, Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi–110003 PAN No. AAACN0189N A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No.1148/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. National Fertilizers Ltd., ACIT, Core-III, Scope Complex, Circle : 17 (2), बनाम 7, Institutional…

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

…ur 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). Having perused the said judgment, the Court is not persuaded to take a view Company v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (sup…

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

…ur 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). Having perused the said judgment, the Court is not persuaded to take a view Company v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (sup…

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

…ur 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). Having perused the said judgment, the Court is not persuaded to take a view Company v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (sup…

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

…ur 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). Having perused the said judgment, the Court is not persuaded to take a view Company v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (sup…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. National Fertilizers Ltd., vs. DCIT, Central Circle 18(1), Core-111, Scope Complex, New Delhi. 7, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. Assessment Year: 2012-13 DCIT, Central Circle 18(1), vs. M/s. National Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi. Core-111, Scope Complex, 7, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. PAN : AAACN0189N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate Revenue by : Sh. Gaurav Pundir, Sr. DR Date…

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

…vour 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 perused the said judgment, the Court is not persuaded to take aview different from that earlier taken by this Cour…

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

…vour 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 perused the said judgment, the Court is not persuaded to take aview different from that earlier taken by this Cour…

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

…vour 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 perused the said judgment, the Court is not persuaded to take aview different from that earlier taken by this Cour…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.3947, 3948 & 3949/Del/2013 (Assessment Years 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) DCIT, Circle 13(1), Vs. M/s. National Fertilizes Ltd., New Delhi Core-III, Scope Complex, 7, Industrial Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi GIR / PAN :AAACN0189N I.T.A.Nos.3520, 3519, 3518 & 3517/Del/2013 (Assessment Years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 respectively) M/s. National Fertilizers Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Circle 13(1), Core III, Scope Complex, New Delhi 7, Industrial Area, Lodi Road,…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.3947, 3948 & 3949/Del/2013 (Assessment Years 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) DCIT, Circle 13(1), Vs. M/s. National Fertilizes Ltd., New Delhi Core-III, Scope Complex, 7, Industrial Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi GIR / PAN :AAACN0189N I.T.A.Nos.3520, 3519, 3518 & 3517/Del/2013 (Assessment Years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 respectively) M/s. National Fertilizers Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Circle 13(1), Core III, Scope Complex, New Delhi 7, Industrial Area, Lodi Road,…

DCIT, Circle-7, Kolkata vs. M/S. Ripley & Company Ltd, Kolkata

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

ITA 1150/KOL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, A.M. & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M.)

For Appellant: S/Shri Somnath Ghosh & Sarnath Ghosh, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, JCIT
Section 143(3)

…ses in view of the payments made in the nature of fine and penalty and opined not allowable with reference to provisions of the Act. 3.3 The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition while considering the orders of his predecessors and also decision reported in [1980] 123 ITR 269 in the case of M/s. Kamal Jyoti Prasad –vs- CIT and [1986] 157 ITR 689 in the case of Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. –vs- CIT. 4. Though the batch of two appeals being filed by the Revenue, the ld. Counsel submitted that the first ground raised by the Revenue are covered by an order dated 10.01.2011 in ITA No.231 of 2010 of the Hon’ble Jurisdict…

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)

…. CIT(A) has delat with the issue at page 44 para 5. That payment in 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 o…