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#1634 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 366,339 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

Read the full judgment

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

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

…bsent in the present case. Even so, breach of law cannot 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 a…

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

…enefit of S.37 of the Act by permitting the assessee to pay the compounding fee as fine. A similar view was taken in Millennia Develops (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (2010) 188 Taxman 388 (Kar.). Here it may be pointed out that in Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Brothers (1961) 41 ITR 350 (SC) relied upon by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in aforesaid decision in Mamta Enterprises(supra),their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that infraction of law is not a normal incident of business thus, proceedings launched against an assessee for an infraction of law cannot be called a commercial loss. Expenses which are permitted…

Lift & Shift India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 4521/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

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

…rm of explanation to section 37(1) of the Act. Aggrieved assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who also confirmed the action of the AO by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Haji Aziz and Abdul Shakoor Bros V. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 350 (SC) by observing in Para 5.5 as under: - “5.5. I find that the facts of the case remain the same during the AY 2012-13 since the compounding fees have been paid for violation of Motor Vehicle Act. Such violations are definitely against the public policy and the compounding charge is nothing but a penalty or settlement in view of undergoing the c…

Lift & Shift India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cen -IV, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 5606/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

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

Gateway Terminals India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3595/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3595/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Gateway Terminals India Pvt. Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Ltd., Income Tax, 5(1), V. Gti House, Jawaharlal Nehru Aaykar Bhavan, Port, M.K. Road, Sheva, District Uran, Mumbai. Navi Mumbai – 400 707. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaccg1899E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kiran NisarFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist, DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)

…wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the club's business, because if |the supply of jockeys of efficiency and skill failed, the business could no longer be possible. Reference was also made to Haji Aziz and Abdul Shakoor Commissioner of Income-tax [1961] 41 ITR 350 ; [1961] 2 SCR 651 (SC), where, disallowing deduction of penalty amount paid to release a consignment confiscated by the customs authorities on the ground that such penalty could not be said to be a commercial loss falling on the assessee as a trader, the test laid down was that expenses which enabled a person to carry on trade for making profits…

M/S Aparna Agency Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-12(3), Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1010/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Sinha, JCIT

Section 37(1)

…either as an act arising from a contract which is expressly or impliedly prohibited by statute, or contracts entered into with the object of committing an illegal act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haji Aziz and Abdul Shakoor Bros. v CIT Bombay City II (1961) 41 ITR 350, it was held that ‘In our opinion, no expense 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. The distinction sought to be drawn between a personal liability and a liability of the kind now before us is not sustainable because anything done which is an…

M/S Ilc Industries Ltd., Hospet vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1009/BANG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40aSection 80Section 80H

…isions of Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 [MMDR Act] but also against public policy. Needless to mention that violation of the provisions of any statute is not a normal incident of business.[Hazi Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros. vs. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 350(SC)]. 35. Now, having held that the purchases made by the appellant are illegal, then the question that arises for consideration is whether this can be allowed as a deduction while computing income under the head ‘business’ keeping in view the provisions of Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 37 of the Act. The Explanation to sub-section (1…

M/S Ilc Industries Ltd., Hospet vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1008/BANG/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40aSection 80Section 80H

M/S Ilc Industries Ltd., Hospet vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 767/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40aSection 80Section 80H