Easy Office
LCI Learning

interest on tds

This query is : Resolved 

18 November 2009 whether intest on late payment of tds is allowed as expense in income tax

18 November 2009 Interest for late payment of direct taxes is not deductible - Interest levied on assessee for delay in filing return would not be allowable as business expenditure - Bharat Commerce & Indus­tries Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 230 ITR 733/98 Taxman 151 (SC).

Interest paid under section 215 for failure to pay advance tax up to statutory percentage would not be allowable as business ex­penditure - Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 230 ITR 733/98 Taxman 151 (SC).

Interest paid under section 220(2) for late payment of income-tax is not deductible as revenue expenditure - CIT v. Ashoka Mills Ltd. [1996] 88 Taxman 184/218 ITR 526 (Guj.)/CIT v. Raipur Manu­facturing Co. Ltd. [1996] 135 CTR (Guj.) 248.

Interest for delayed filing of return is not deductible - It cannot be said that interest paid for delay in filing the return has any connection with the business of the assessee. If income-tax is not a permissible deduction under section 37, any interest payable for default committed by the assessee in discharging its statutory obligation under the Income-tax Act which is calculated with reference to the tax or income, cannot be allowed as a deduction - Orient General Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 209 ITR 490 (Cal.).
Interest paid on sales tax arrears is deductible - Interest paid by the assessee to the Sales-tax Department on arrears of sales tax is an admissible deduction under section 37(1) - Lachmandas Mathuradas v. CIT [2002] 254 ITR 799/122 Taxman 828(SC)/CIT v. Western India State Motors [1987] 167 ITR 395 (Raj.)/CIT v. Western Indian State Motors [1988] 174 ITR 116 (Raj.).

Interest on purchase tax arrears is deductible - Interest paid to the Government on arrears of purchase tax is deductible - CIT v. Chodavaram Co-operative Sugars Ltd. [1987] 163 ITR 420 (AP)/CIT v. Shri Sarvaraya Sugars Ltd. [1987] 163 ITR 429 (AP)/Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 683 (Delhi).

18 November 2009 dear nishant,

not allowed because this penalty levied by the payer due delay in deposit the tds. therefore not to claim in expenses



18 November 2009 not allowed



You need to be the querist or approved CAclub expert to take part in this query .
Click here to login now

CAclubindia's WhatsApp Groups Link


Similar Resolved Queries


loading


Unanswered Queries




Answer Query