CIT v. Mamta Enterprises

266 ITR 356High Court2004#5145 most cited

What is CIT v. Mamta Enterprises authority for?

Compounding fees paid for illegal activities, such as unauthorized construction, are not deductible as business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act because they represent expenses incurred for compounding a criminal offense.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Mamta Enterprises · Section 37(1) · compounding fees · unauthorized construction · business expenditure · disallowance · infraction of law · penalty · illegal activity

Also reported as

135 Taxmann 393

Sections most often in play

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

Judgments citing CIT v. Mamta Enterprises

NIRMAN SONESTAA DEVELOPERS,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1536/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 37Section 37(1)

…he material available on record. We, at the outset, find that the issue of the allowability of compounding fees under section 37 of the Act came up for consideration before the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Mamta Enterprises, reported in [2004] 266 ITR 356 (Karn.). While deciding the issue in favour of the Revenue, the Hon’ble High Court, in the aforesaid decision, observed as follows: – “5. Having elaborately heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, while we find considerable force in the submission of Sri Seshachala, we are unable to accede to the submission of Sri Kulkarni. We are un…

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…

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. SERAJUDDIN & CO. PVT. LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 440/CTK/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
Section 37Section 37(1)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अरुण खोड़पऩया ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar ………………..Revenue Versus M/s Serajuddin & Co. (P) Ltd., „C‟ Wing, Fortune Tower, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar-751023 PAN No.AAICS 3545 F ………………Assessee Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR for the Revenue Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate for the assessee Date of Hearing : 10/10/2022 Date of Pronouncement : 10/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This…

ACIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S RUNGTA MINES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2344/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 73

…present case are to be regarded as penalty for infringement of law falling within the ambit of Explanation to section 37(1) of the Act. The ld. DR also placed reliance to the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vsMamta Enterprises 266 ITR 356 (Ka. In the aforesaid case, compounding charges paid for unauthorised construction was claimed as deduction while computing income from business. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held that the compounding fee was paid for the purpose of compounding a criminal offence and was therefore hit by the provision of Explanation to section 37(1) of the Ac…

INDRANI PATNAIK,ROURKELA vs. DCIT, RORUKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for assessment years 2012-13 &

ITA 393/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Bhadra, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam,, CIT DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.389 & 390/CTK/2017 Assessment Years : 2012-2013 & 2013-14 ACIT, Rourkela Circle, Vs. Smt. Indrani Patnaik A-6, Rourkela Commercial Estate, Civil Township, Rourkela PAN/GIR No.ACCPP 6164 E (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) ITA Nos.393 & 394/CTK/2017 Assessment Years : 2012-2013 & 2013-14 Smt. Indrani Patnaik A-6, Vs. ACIT, Rourkela Circle, Commercial Estate, Civil Rourkela Township, Rourkela PAN/GIR No.ACCPP 6164 E (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by…

ACIT, RORUKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA vs. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for assessment years 2012-13 &

ITA 389/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Bhadra, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam,, CIT DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.389 & 390/CTK/2017 Assessment Years : 2012-2013 & 2013-14 ACIT, Rourkela Circle, Vs. Smt. Indrani Patnaik A-6, Rourkela Commercial Estate, Civil Township, Rourkela PAN/GIR No.ACCPP 6164 E (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) ITA Nos.393 & 394/CTK/2017 Assessment Years : 2012-2013 & 2013-14 Smt. Indrani Patnaik A-6, Vs. ACIT, Rourkela Circle, Commercial Estate, Civil Rourkela Township, Rourkela PAN/GIR No.ACCPP 6164 E (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by…

DCIT,CC-6(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S.SAMIRA GATEWAYS & PROPERTIES PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2009-10,

ITA 1750/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2012-2013

For Appellant: Aayush Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Bharti Singh (DR)
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2012-2013 The DCIT, Cent. Cir.- 6(2), M/s Samira Gateways & R. No. 1903, 19th Floor, Properties Pvt. Ltd., Air India Building, Nariman Point, G, Shrikant Chambers, Mumbai - 400021 Vs. Sion Trombay Road, Next to R.K. Studios Chembur, Mumbai - 400071 PAN: AABCS1678L (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Bharti Singh (DR) Assessee by : Aayush Goyal (CA) Date of Hearing: 19/12/2019 Date of Pronoun…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 12/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Respondent: Sh. YVST Sai, D.R
Section 251Section 28Section 32Section 32(1)Section 37(1)Section 43(1)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD ‘A’ BENCH : Hyderabad Before Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member And Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member ITA No. 2335/Hyd./2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mylan Laboratories Limited. Vs. Dy.CIT, Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad. PAN: AADCM3491M (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 12/Hyd./2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy.CIT, Circle 16(2) vs. Mylan Laboratories Limited. 2nd Floor, B Block, Plot No.564/A/22, Road no.92 I.T.Towers, A.C.Guards, Jubilee Hills Masab Tank Hyderabad 500 034. Hyderabad & (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue: Sh. YVST Sai, D.R. For…

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2335/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Respondent: Sh. YVST Sai, D.R
Section 251Section 28Section 32Section 32(1)Section 37(1)Section 43(1)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD ‘A’ BENCH : Hyderabad Before Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member And Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member ITA No. 2335/Hyd./2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mylan Laboratories Limited. Vs. Dy.CIT, Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad. PAN: AADCM3491M (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 12/Hyd./2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy.CIT, Circle 16(2) vs. Mylan Laboratories Limited. 2nd Floor, B Block, Plot No.564/A/22, Road no.92 I.T.Towers, A.C.Guards, Jubilee Hills Masab Tank Hyderabad 500 034. Hyderabad & (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue: Sh. YVST Sai, D.R. For…

M/S.VIGHNAHARTA BUILDERS & PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.CIT,RANGE-7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6499/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Vighnaharta Builders Acit Range 7(3), Aayakar Bhavan & Projects Pvt. Ltd., 47-1/8 M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Vs. Shree Ganesh Nagar, 400020. Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaacv3498G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanka Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Samatha Mullamudi, DR
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s Vighnaharta Builders ACIT Range 7(3), Aayakar Bhavan, & Projects Pvt. Ltd., 47-1/8 M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Vs. Shree Ganesh Nagar, 400020. Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. PAN No. AAACV3498G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Ms. Priyanka Jain, AR Revenue by : Mrs. Samatha Mullamudi, DR Date of Hearing : 12/09/2019 Date of pronouncement : 18/09/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment…

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

…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 laid out or expanded wholly and exclusively for the pur…

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

…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 laid out or expanded wholly and exclusively for the pur…

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

…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 laid out or expanded wholly and exclusively for the pur…

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

…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 laid out or expanded wholly and exclusively for the pur…

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

…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 laid out or expanded wholly and exclusively for the pur…

SHIVALIK VENTURES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD-1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the

ITA 5407/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Shivalik Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Acit Cc-4(2), Plot No. 756, Staney Fernandes Aayakar Bhavan, .M. K. Road, Wadi, D S Babrekar Marg, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028. Pan: Aalcs7683R Appellant Respondent Acit Cc-4(2), M/S Shivalik Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, .M. K. Road, Plot No. 756, Staney Fernandes Mumbai-400020. Vs. Wadi, D S Babrekar Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028. Pan: Aalcs7683R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Anuj Kisnadwala (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Manjunatha Swamy (Cit-Dr), Rajeev Gubgotra Date Of Hearing : 31.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2018 Orderunder Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. These Cross Appeals Filed Under Section 253 Of The Act Are Directed Against

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, Anuj Kisnadwala (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy (CIT-DR), Rajeev Gubgotra
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Shivalik Ventures Pvt. Ltd. ACIT CC-4(2), Plot No. 756, Staney Fernandes Aayakar Bhavan, .M. K. Road, Wadi, D S Babrekar Marg, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028. PAN: AALCS7683R Appellant Respondent ACIT CC-4(2), M/s Shivalik Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, .M. K. Road, Plot No. 756, Staney Fernandes Mumbai-400020. Vs. Wadi, D S Babrekar Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028. PAN: AALCS7683R Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Vijay Mehta, Anuj Kisnadwala (AR)…

ACME HOUSING INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 9, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal assessee is allowed

ITA 4919/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am M/S Acme Housing India The Dy. Commissioner Of Private Limited, Building 10, Income Tax, Central Circle 5Th Floor, Solitare Corporate 9, Mumbai Vs. Park, Guru Hargovindji Rd, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aadca0705E

For Appellant: Jitendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Virender singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…y compounding fees, which is not in the nature of offence nor prohibition of any law. Hence, it is allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act. 5. We find that this issue has been considered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mamta Enterprises, [2004] 266 ITR 356 (Kar.), wherein Hon’ble High court has considered this issue in detail and held as under:- “The Finance (No.2) Act of 1998has inserted an Explanation to section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with retrospective effect from April 1, 1962. The Explanation makes it clear that the assessee who incurs expenditure for any purpose which is an offence…

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S FEEGRADE & COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1654/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 3Section 37(1)Section 73

…present case are to be regarded as penalty for infringement of law falling within the ambit of Explanation to section 37(1) of the Act. The ld. DR also placed reliance to the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Mamta Enterprises 266 ITR 356 (Ka. In the aforesaid case, compounding charges paid for unauthorised construction was claimed as deduction while computing income from business. The Hon’ble ITA No.1654/Kol/2016 M/s Feegrade & Company Ltd. A.Y.2013-14 Karnataka High Court held that the compounding fee was paid for the purpose of compounding a criminal offence and was therefore…

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RUNGTA MINES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1653/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tiwari, CITFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 3Section 37(1)Section 73

…present case are to be regarded as penalty for infringement of law falling within the ambit of Explanation to section 37(1) of the Act. The ld. DR also placed reliance to the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Mamta Enterprises 266 ITR 356 (Ka. In the aforesaid case, compounding charges paid for unauthorised construction was claimed as deduction while computing income from business. The Hon’ble ITA No.1653/Kol/2016 M/s. Rungta Mines Private Ltd. A.Y.2013-14 Karnataka High Court held that the compounding fee was paid for the purpose of compounding a criminal offence and was theref…

DCIT, CC-193, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RUNGTA SONS PRIVATE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1652/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 3Section 37(1)Section 73

…present case are to be regarded as penalty for infringement of law falling within the ambit of Explanation to section 37(1) of the Act. The ld. DR also placed reliance to the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Mamta Enterprises 266 ITR 356 (Ka. In the aforesaid case, compounding charges paid for unauthorised construction was claimed as deduction while computing income from business. The Hon’ble ITA No.1652/Kol/2016 M/s. Rungta Sons Private Ltd. A.Y.2013-14 Karnataka High Court held that the compounding fee was paid for the purpose of compounding a criminal offence and was therefo…

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2

CIT v. Mamta Enterprises (266 ITR 356) — Cited in 23 Judgments | BharatTax