9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 2110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2013-14. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6 [in short 'CIT(A)'], Mumbai and arises out of the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the 'Act'). 2. The ground of appeal reads as under: "The CIT(A) erred in holding that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n decided against the assessee by the High Court in Martin & Harris (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 73 Taxman 555 (Cal), Ferro Alloys Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 406 (Bom) and CIT v. Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd. (1999) 105 Taxman 346 (Mad). The Ld. DR agrees with the above submission of the Ld. counsel. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the claim for deduction of interest levied u/s 220(2) u/s 215 and u/s 201(1A) was rightly rejected as not allowable u/s 37 of the Act. In Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Madras High Court has held : "Income-tax is not allowable as business expenditure. The amount deducted as tax is not an item of expenditure. The amount not deducted and remitted has the character o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
