How many judgments cite Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. CIT?

69 judgments on BharatTax cite Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. CIT (41 ITR 350), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 37(1), Section 132, Section 132(1), Section 132(3), Section 132(4), Section 139.

Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. CIT

41 ITR 350Supreme Court of India1961#1635 most cited

What is Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. CIT authority for?

Penalties paid for a breach of law or contravention of statutory provisions are not allowable deductions as business expenditure because they cannot be considered wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the business. This principle is now enshrined in Explanation 1 to Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros. · 41 ITR 350 · Section 37(1) · Section 10(2)(xv) · penalty for breach of law · business expenditure deduction · wholly and exclusively · redemption fine · prohibited by law · statutory contravention · Explanation 1 to Section 37(1)

Also reported as

41 CTR 350

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

section 226 section 14a(1)section 211 explanation to section 37 prohibited by law section 135 section 114 section 115ja period of holding interest on securities section 139(5)section 21

Judgments citing Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. CIT

NAMAKKAL SOUTH INDIA TRANSPORTS,NAMAKKAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, NAMAKKAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1992/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 37

…ontract in the course of business are allowable deductions. These decisions squarely apply to the facts of the present case. 18. The reliance placed by the ld. DR on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haji Aziz and Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 350 (SC) is misplaced, as that case dealt with penalty paid for contravention of statutory provisions, which is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case where no statutory violation has been established. 19. The non-response of M/s.Chettinad Cements Ltd. to the notice issued u/s.133(6) of the Act, by itself, cannot be a ground to di…

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)

…s of sugarcane cess levied under the said Act. It was a criminal liability and was not a permissible deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Further the Supreme Court in the case of Haji Aziz and Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 350, held that no expenses which is paid by way of penalty for a breach of the law can be said to be an amount wholly and exclusively laid for the purpose of the business. It has been held in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore vs. Jayaram Metal Industries [2007] 158 Taxman 169 (Karnataka)/[2006] 286 ITR 403 (Karnataka)/[2006] 204 CTR 44…

SRI SRAVAN KUMAR NEELA,NALGONDA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

ITA 899/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 132ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 69A

…v. CIT [2006] 287 ITR 547 (SC) held as not good law. Reference was also made to it’s earlier decisions, viz. Apex Laboratories (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2022] 442 ITR 1 (SC); Chuharmal v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 250 (SC); Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 350 (SC); Badridas Daga v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 10 (SC). Further, the silver bars seized being not recorded in the assessee’s books, who could not furnish any explanation as to their source, income was held by the Hon’ble Court as rightly brought to tax u/s. 69A. The decision, it may be noted, accords with the settled law, explained in Haji Aziz & Abdul…

SRI UMA MAHESHWARA RAO CHINNI,GUNTUR vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

ITA 895/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 132ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 69A

IDFC FIRST BANK LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT-CORP CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly-allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 776/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 14A

…said amount, though it was not his primary liability. Be that as it may, this cannot be stated to be a penalty for infraction of law. Reference to the decision of Supreme Court in case of Haji Aziz and Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [1961] 41 ITR 350 therefore is not of any help to the Revenue. It was a case in which the assessee had imported dates from Iraq, at a time when such import was prohibited. Due to this, the dates imported by the assessee by steamers were confiscated by the customs authorities. The assessee was given an option to pay redemption fine and have the dates released. The a…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/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) Assessee by : Shri.Dharan Gandhi.AR Revenue by : Shri.Manoj Kumar Sinha.DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing 08/12/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 23/01/2024 आदे…

SRI HARIKUTTAN T,KAYAMKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, ALLEPPEY

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 885/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Harikuttan T. The Income Tax Officer (2) 1, Edayilaveetil Tharayil Aayakar Bhavan Njakkanal P.O., Pathiyoor Vs. Alappuzha Co0Llectorate Kayalmulam 690533 Alappuzha 688011 [Pan:Alrpt7536J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing:08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:03.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By Assessee Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Vide Order Dated 17/02/2022, By The First Appellate Authority, Being The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nfac [Cit(A)] Vide It’S Order Dated 06.07.2022. 2.1 The Brief Background Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Retired Defence Personnel, Is A Registered Money Lender Under The Kerala Money Lenders Act (Kml Act), Lending Money On Interest Against Mortgage Of Loan. For The Relevant Year He Returned, Besides Pension, Income From This Business At Rs.2,05,691. On Verification, It Was Found By The Assessing Officer (Ao) That The Assessee Was Maintaining Six Bank Accounts, I.E., Three Each With Two Banks, Being South Indian Bank (Sib) & State Bank Of India (Sbi). Transactions With The Former Were Undisclosed. The Reason Explained Was That The Gold Pawned By His Customers With Him For Availing Loan, Was In Turn Mortgaged With This Bank To Source Funds For Further Lending. These

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 270ASection 274Section 37(1)

…not the assessee’s business. He had, in an attempt to make a larger profit, indulged in smuggling of silver, causing infraction of law. The claim of loss by way of confiscation of silver was thus unsustainable. (Haji Aziz and Abdul Shakoor Bros vs. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 350 (SC)). J. Sunder relied on Explanation 1 to section 37(1) as the basis of his decision. The word ‘expenditure’ in section 37(1) of the Act would take in its sweep the loss incurred in the course of business. There cannot be a situation where the assessee carrying an illegal business can claim deduction of expenditure or loss incurred in the course…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR vs. PRAKASH CHAND LUNIA (D) THR LRS

C.A. No.-007689-007690 - 2022Supreme Court24 Apr 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 104Section 112Section 135Section 271Section 69A

…elied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order and it has been relied upon by the assessee shall not be applicable to the facts of the case. On hand or the other hand the decision of this Court in the case of Haji Aziz (1961) 41 ITR 350 (SC) and the decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Bombay High Court which were pressed into service by the Revenue in Piara Singh (supra) would be applicable with full force. 7. In view of the above and for the reason stated above and looking to the business of the assessee namely silver business and was not in the business…

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 246/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 246/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 cuke Allen Career Institute The JCIT CP-6, Indra Nagar Vs. Range-2 Kotas Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAEFA 3972 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate & Shri Dewang Gargieya, Advocate jktLo…

M/S J.C.SHARMA & SONS,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 139/IND/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 163Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

…ar 2016-17 “4. It is seen from the audited books that Rs.14,221/- has been debited as interest on TDS which is not a permitted expense and the same is being disallowed under provision of section 37 of I.T. Act. In Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros vs. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 350 (SC), it was held that a penalty imposed for breach of any law during the course of trade etc, cannot be described as a commercial loss. If a sum is paid by an assessee conducting his business, because in conducting it he has acted in a manner which has rendered him liable to penalty, it cannot be claimed as a deductible expense. Infraction of law…

MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS KARNATAKA STATE MINERALS CORPORATION LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 465/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.464 to 465/Bang/2020 Assessment year : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mysore Minerals Ltd. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner [now Karnataka State Minerals of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd.], Circle 4[1][2], BMTC Shantinagar TTMC Building, Bengaluru. ‘A’ Block, 5th Floor, Shantinagar, Bengaluru – 560 027. PAN: AACCM 2873L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent by : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 03.03.2…

MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS KARNATAKA STATE MINERALS CORPORATION LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 464/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

ACIT -2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI JAYANT DATTATRAY MHAISKAR, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 510/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 24Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (JM) I.T.A. No. 510/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2017-18) Vs. Jayant Dattatray ACIT-2(2)(1) Room No.545, 5th Floor Mhaiskar Aaykar Bhawan 410, Boomergang, M.K.Road-400020 Chandivali Farm Road Andheri(E) Mumbai-400 072 PAN : AABCJ8752C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Hema Katariya Department by Shri S.N.Kabra Date of Hearing 02.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement 16.02.2022 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income-t…

VELANKANI INFORMATION SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 156/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Prabhu, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 30Section 37Section 37(1)

…ut of or concerned with or made out of the profit of the business, but it must also be for the purpose of earning profits of the business. For this purpose, we rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Haji Aziz and Abdul Shakoor Bros., 41 ITR 350 (SC). 6. Before us, the main contention of the ld. AR is that the expenditure was incurred for the purpose of business and which was not recovered from the parties and the same to be allowed as business deduction u/s. 37(1) of the Act on writing off the same. But the primary condition to allow this expenditure is that it should not be capital exp…

SRI. K R KAVIRAJ,HOSPET vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1952/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Prasad Reddy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 37

…violations like encroachment etc. Ld.AO relied upon following case laws to buttress his view that the penalty is not allowable as deduction:- (a) Maddi Venkataramana& Co (P) Ltd vs. CIT (1998)(229 ITR 534)(SC) (b) Haji Azis& Abdul Shakoor Bros. Vs. CIT (1961)(41 ITR 350)(SC) (c) Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd vs. CIT (79 ITR 514)(SC) ITA Nos.1950 to 1952/Bang/2018 Sri K.R. Kaviraj, Hosapete Page 26 of 37 8.12.2. Assessee claimed Rs.9,69,00,000/- as expenditure in the original return of income and excluded the same from Sales revenue in the revised return of income contending that the same is diversion by overriding t…

SRI. K R KAVIRAJ,HOSPET vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1951/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Prasad Reddy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 37

SRI. K R KAVIRAJ,HOSAPETE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1950/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Prasad Reddy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 37

M/S MUNEER ENTERPRISES ,HOSPET vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , HOSPET

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3411/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath K., D.R

…it was held that the penalties paid for violation of law is opposed to public policy and not allowable as deduction. The AO also took support of following decisions, wherein identical view has been expressed:- (a) Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros vs. CIT (1961)(41 ITR 350)(SC) (b) Indian Aluminium Co Ltd vs. CIT (79 ITR 514)(SC) (c) Millennia Developers (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2010)(188 taxmann 388)(Kar) (d) Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd vs. CIT (226 Taxmann364)(P & H) Accordingly, he disallowed the claim of Rs.12, 07,51,307/-. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the same. 5.1 The Ld A.R submitted that identical payment made in the…

M/S ZEENATH TRANSPORT COMPANY ,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 1780/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 135Section 37Section 37(1)

…of the law is not a normal incident of business and therefore, no expense which is paid by way of penalty for breach of the law can be said to be an amount wholly and exclusively laid for the purpose of business [Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros. Vs. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 350 (SC)]. A payment made under a statutory obligation because the assessee was in default could not constitute expenditure laid out for the purpose of assessee's business [Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (SC) 79 ITR 514]. In the case of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (SC) 79 ITR 514 it was held by the Apex Court that - A payment made under a statu…

M/S GOGGA GURUSANTHAIAH AND BROTHERS ,HOSPET vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3319/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 37

…of the law is not a normal incident of business and therefore, no expense which is paid by way of penalty for breach of the law can be said to be an amount wholly and exclusively laid for the purpose of business [Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros. Vs. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 350 (SC)]. A payment - made under a statutory obligation because the assessee was in default could not constitute expenditure laid out for the purpose of assessee's business [Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (SC) 79 ITR 514].In the case of Indian Aluminum Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (SC) 79 ITR 514 it was held by the Apex Court that - A payment made under a statu…

Showing 1–20 of 69 · Page 1 of 4