Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC)

79 ITR 514Supreme Court of India1971#4880 most cited

What is Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) authority for?

Penalties paid for violation of law are not allowable as a deduction. Such penalties are opposed to public policy.

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Also referred to as

Indian Aluminium Co Ltd vs. CIT · penalty not allowable as deduction · violation of law · opposed to public policy

Judgments citing Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC)

DCIT Cir 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Anil Dhirajlal Ambani, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3676/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Dcit – Circle 3(3)(1) Vs. Shri Anil Dhirajlal Ambani Room No.609, 39, Sea Wind 6Th Floor Cuffe Parade Aayakar Bhavan Colaba, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aad[A3703D Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…e above submissions, the Revenue also contends that the said payments are also not wholly and exclusively for purpose of business. For this proposition, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Aluminium Company Ltd., 79 ITR 514 (SC), wherein it was held that a payment made under the statutory obligation because the assessee was in default could not constitute expenditure laid out for the purpose of assessee's business. The ratio of this case is squarely applicable to the case at hand, wherein the payment has been made for serious breach of Law and hence cannot constitute…

ITO, Ward-4(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Aachman Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 112/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: : Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl.CIT, ld.DRFor Respondent: Shri Girish Sharma, Advocate, ld.AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ant Mr. Pankaj Vora with whom the appellant had long business relationship. Therefore, I will conclude that the appellant had given loan to Mr. K.D. in the ordinary course of business. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Alumunium Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 79 ITR 514 has held that the debt to be written off should directly spring from the carrying on of a business or trade and should be incidental to it. In the case of the appellant, money lending is the main business activity and it is on account of money lent to Mr. K.D. that the bad debt has arisen. I, therefore, hold that the appellant had advanced loan to…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Ajuba Solutions India P Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3428/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3428/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri K.Parthasarathy, Sr. ManagerFor Respondent: Finance
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 28Section 29Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 40A(7)Section 43B

…be regarded as an incidence of business, which is the premises of the disallowance u/s. 37(1) of sums paid by way of penalty or fine (refer, inter alia, Hazi Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Brothers. v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 350 (SC); Indian Aluminum Co. Ltd., v. CIT [1971] 79 ITR 514 (SC); Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 233 ITR 199 (SC)). The non consideration of such disallowance for the purpose of deduction u/s. 10A, et.al is perhaps guided by the overarching consideration not to extend the benefit of the benevolent provisions to breaches of law, defeat as it would, the disallowance u/s. 37(1). As aforesaid, th…

Cushman & Wakefield Property Management Services India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. K. N. Chary, Jm Ita No. 185/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Cushman & Wakefield Property Vs Dcit, Management Services India Pvt. Circle-3(1), Ltd., B-6/8, Commercial Complex, New Delhi Opp. Deep Park, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3657N Assessee By : Sh. G. C. Srivastava, Adv. & Sh. Anubhav Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Anshu Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.07.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.07.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.11.2013 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Vi, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. G. C. Srivastava, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Anshu Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

…see being allowed deduction in respect of the loss so incurred to the assessee. We approve the conclusions arrived at by the CIT (A) and decline to interfere in the matter.” We would also like to mention that in the case of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. vs. CIT – 79 ITR 514 (SC), the issue under consideration was different than the issue before us in the present case. In that case, the principle business of the assessee company was manufacturing of aluminium ingots, sheets and other aluminium products. Assessee entered into an agreement with the company in Montreal, Canada and as per this agreement, there was an annu…