CIT v. Mamta Enterprises

266 ITR 356High Court2004#5136 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 366,470 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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Jaipuria Infrastructure Developers, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 1332/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Dcit, Circle – 4(1), Room No. Jaipuria Infrastructure 407, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Developers, 9B, Hansalaya, New Delhi Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan : Aaccb1286C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr.Dr Respondent By S/Sh. Rupesh Jain & Dipesh Jain, Adv. Date Of Hearing 18.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 16.06.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 28/01/2011 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Vii, New Delhi [In Short “The Cit-(A)”] For Assessment Year 2007-08, Raising Following Grounds:

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37

…sment year in consideration, the assessee paid Rs.5,78,78,830/- to the “Ghaziabad Development Authority” (GDA) as compounding fee. The Assessing Officer relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mamta Enterprises (2004) 266 ITR 356, wherein it is held that compounding fee paid to municipal Corporation for condoning violation of law relating to construction of property is not deductible in view of Explanation to section 37 of the Act. In the instant case, before the Assessing Officer, the assessee submitted a certificate from a architect firm, namely, M/s Anuj Aggarwal Archi…

Oberoi Realty Ltd ( Formelry Known As Kingston Properties P.Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 23, Mumbai

ITA 1050/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 Oberoi Realty Limited (Formerly Acit, Cc-23, R. No. 409, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Known As Kingston Properties Pvt. Ltd.) Commerz, 3Rd Floor, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 International Business Park, Oberoi Vs. Garden City, Off Wstern Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai- 400063. Pan: Aabck0235H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Bist (DR)
Section 14ASection 3Section 37(1)Section 80A(5)Section 80ISection 80r

…e such as on account of protection money, extortion, hufta, bribes etc. and not to the normal business expenses. 8. Ld. DR for revenue has further relied upon the judgment of Karnataka High Court in case titled as CIT vs. Mamta Enterprises reported in 2004(1) 266 ITR 356 (Kar), wherein it was held that putting up construction without there being a sanction plan as an offence under Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 and it is treated as and prohibited by law. In our opinion, the fact of the case relied by ld. DR are at variance. In the present case, the assessee has paid the charges on account of regulariza…

Oberoi Constructions Ltd ( Formerly Known As Oberoi Consructions P. Ltd ), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 23, Mumbai

ITA 1010/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 Oberoi Constructions Ltd. (Formerly Acit, Cc-23, R. No. 409, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Known As Oberoi Constructions Pvt. Ltd.) Commerz, 3Rd Floor, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 International Business Park, Oberoi Vs. Garden City, Off Estern Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai- 400063. Pan: Aaaco1805E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Bist (DR)
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 37(1)

…such as on account of protection money, extortion, hufta, bribes etc. and not to the normal business expenses. 11. Ld. DR for revenue has further relied upon the judgment of Karnataka High Court in case titled as CIT vs. Mamta Enterprises reported in 2004(1) 266 ITR 356 (Kar), wherein it was held that putting up construction without there being a sanction plan as an offence under Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 and it is treated as and prohibited by law. In our opinion, the fact of the case relied by ld. DR are at variance. In the present case, the assessee has paid the charges on account of regulariza…