Bom.), Orient Trading Company Ltd. vs CIT 202 ITR 481, 491 (Guj.), Agra Leatheries Ltd. v. CIT (

286 ITR 403High Court2006#11461 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 37(1)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144

Issues it is cited on

prohibited by lawsection 37(1)section 37companysection 143(3)businessinterest

Judgments citing Bom.), Orient Trading Company Ltd. vs CIT 202 ITR 481, 491 (Guj.), Agra Leatheries Ltd. v. CIT (

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 812/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;d lnL; ,o aJh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihyla-@ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. cuke ACIT, Vs. Ltd. Central Circle- 1, Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Jaipur and Kashmir LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA jktLo…

MANGALORE CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS LTD., ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1209/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sri H.V. Gowthama, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 37

…lusively for the purpose business. There is also no dispute that it is in the nature of revenue expenditure. 5.3 Further, ld. D.R. submitted the compilation of decisions relied upon by the revenue as detailed below- a) CIT Vs. Jayaram Metal Industries (2006) 286 ITR 403 (Kar.HC). Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., Bangalore Page 10 of 13 b) Swadeshi Cotton ills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 233 ITR (SC) c) PCIT Vs. Sushil Gupta (2019) 411 ITR 678 (Bom.) d) CIT Vs. Rane Brake Linings Ltd. (2002) 255 ITR 218 (Mad.) 5.4 We have gone through all these decisions relied upon by the ld. DR. In our view all the above decisio…

M/S A.C.CHOKSHI SHARE BROKERS PVT LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2990/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Ac Chokshi Acit, Cc-1(3) Share Brokers Pvt Ltd, 905, 9Th Floor, बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Itts House, Pratishtha Bhavan, Vs. 28K Dubash Marg, Old Cgo Annex, Kala Ghoda, Fort, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400023. Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabca3464E (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri.Dharan Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Manoj Kumar Sinha.DR
Section 271(1)(C)Section 37(1)

…he Act and is not a compoundable. The Ld. DR relied on the following judicial decisions: 1.Sri Satyanaraya Rice Mill Vs. CIT, [1985] 155 ITR 676, (AP) 2.Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd, Vs. CIT, [2014], 49 taxmann.com 565 (P&H) 3.CIT Vs jayaram Metal Industries(2006)286 ITR 403. 3.PCIT Vs. Sushil Gupta, [2019], 102 taxmann.com 409 (Bombay) 4.Haji Aziz and Abdul Shakoor Bros, Vs. CIT, [1961] 41 ITR350 (SC) The Ld. AR emphasizing that the out of court settlement amount paid is in the nature of civil expenditure. We on perusal of the Statutory Audit report under the companies Act, in particular notes to the financial stat…

ASHOK MOHANBAHI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 154/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 30Section 37

…asad vs CIT 172 ITR 129(ALL) (penalty for breach of law), Rohit Pulp & Paper Mills ltd. (215 ITR 919, 922) (Bom.), Orient Trading Company Ltd. vs CIT 202 ITR 481, 491 (Guj.), Agra Leatheries Ltd. vs CIT (200 ITR 792)(All.), CIT vs Jayaram Metal Industres 286 ITR 403 (409) (Karn.), CIT vs Mamta Enterprises 266 ITR 356 (Karn.) supports our view. The crux of the ratio in the aforesaid cases is that any penalty/deduction/expenditure claimed in violation of legal business/infraction of law is not an allowable deduction. Even otherwise, the word “any expenditure” used in section 37 denotes legal expenditure lai…

ASHOK MOHANBAHI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 153/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 30Section 37

…asad vs CIT 172 ITR 129(ALL) (penalty for breach of law), Rohit Pulp & Paper Mills ltd. (215 ITR 919, 922) (Bom.), Orient Trading Company Ltd. vs CIT 202 ITR 481, 491 (Guj.), Agra Leatheries Ltd. vs CIT (200 ITR 792)(All.), CIT vs Jayaram Metal Industres 286 ITR 403 (409) (Karn.), CIT vs Mamta Enterprises 266 ITR 356 (Karn.) supports our view. The crux of the ratio in the aforesaid cases is that any penalty/deduction/expenditure claimed in violation of legal business/infraction of law is not an allowable deduction. Even otherwise, the word “any expenditure” used in section 37 denotes legal expenditure lai…

ASHOK MOHANBAHI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 152/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 30Section 37

…asad vs CIT 172 ITR 129(ALL) (penalty for breach of law), Rohit Pulp & Paper Mills ltd. (215 ITR 919, 922) (Bom.), Orient Trading Company Ltd. vs CIT 202 ITR 481, 491 (Guj.), Agra Leatheries Ltd. vs CIT (200 ITR 792)(All.), CIT vs Jayaram Metal Industres 286 ITR 403 (409) (Karn.), CIT vs Mamta Enterprises 266 ITR 356 (Karn.) supports our view. The crux of the ratio in the aforesaid cases is that any penalty/deduction/expenditure claimed in violation of legal business/infraction of law is not an allowable deduction. Even otherwise, the word “any expenditure” used in section 37 denotes legal expenditure lai…

ASHOK MOHANBAHI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 151/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 30Section 37

…asad vs CIT 172 ITR 129(ALL) (penalty for breach of law), Rohit Pulp & Paper Mills ltd. (215 ITR 919, 922) (Bom.), Orient Trading Company Ltd. vs CIT 202 ITR 481, 491 (Guj.), Agra Leatheries Ltd. vs CIT (200 ITR 792)(All.), CIT vs Jayaram Metal Industres 286 ITR 403 (409) (Karn.), CIT vs Mamta Enterprises 266 ITR 356 (Karn.) supports our view. The crux of the ratio in the aforesaid cases is that any penalty/deduction/expenditure claimed in violation of legal business/infraction of law is not an allowable deduction. Even otherwise, the word “any expenditure” used in section 37 denotes legal expenditure lai…

ASHOK MOHANBAHI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 150/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 30Section 37

…asad vs CIT 172 ITR 129(ALL) (penalty for breach of law), Rohit Pulp & Paper Mills ltd. (215 ITR 919, 922) (Bom.), Orient Trading Company Ltd. vs CIT 202 ITR 481, 491 (Guj.), Agra Leatheries Ltd. vs CIT (200 ITR 792)(All.), CIT vs Jayaram Metal Industres 286 ITR 403 (409) (Karn.), CIT vs Mamta Enterprises 266 ITR 356 (Karn.) supports our view. The crux of the ratio in the aforesaid cases is that any penalty/deduction/expenditure claimed in violation of legal business/infraction of law is not an allowable deduction. Even otherwise, the word “any expenditure” used in section 37 denotes legal expenditure lai…

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

ITA/11/2002HC Delhi07 Aug 2014
Section 111Section 37

…earned counsel for the Revenue, however, submits that the decision in Usha Micro Process Controls Ltd. (supra) requires reconsideration in view of decisions of other high courts as noticed in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jayaram Metal Industries, [2006] 286 ITR 403 (Kar) and Maddi Venkataraman & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [1998] 229 ITR 534 (SC). He submits that language of Explanation to Section 37 is quite clear and once it is held that the expenditure was incurred for any purpose, which was prohibited by law, the same is deemed not to be incurred for the purpose of business or pro…

Bom.), Orient Trading Company Ltd. vs CIT 202 ITR 481, 491 (Guj.), Agra Leatheries Ltd. v. CIT ( (286 ITR 403) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax