Maddi Venkataraman & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

229 ITR 534Supreme Court of India1998#1574 most cited

What is Maddi Venkataraman & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Expenditure incurred for a purpose prohibited by law or in violation of another statute is not deductible as business expenditure under Section 37(1) as it is against public policy. The Explanation to Section 37 reinforces that such expenditure is deemed not for business.

72

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Maddi Venkataraman & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT · Section 37(1) · Explanation to Section 37 · business expenditure · deduction disallowed · expenditure prohibited by law · illegal payments · public policy · commercial expediency

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 127Section 132Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3A)Section 143(3B)

Issues it is cited on

explanation to section 37section 153a proceedingsprohibited by lawsection 158bdgoing concernbusiness expediencysection 246section 30commercial expediencysection 246achange of opinionsection 149

Judgments citing Maddi Venkataraman & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

SRI. M. SRINIVASULU,BELLARY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), BELLARY

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

ITA 1393/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2011-12 Shri. Srinivasulu Metri, Vs. Dcit, 168/C 18Th Ward Near Water Booster, Circle – 1(1) Gandhi Nagar, Bellary – 583 103, Karnataka. Bellary. Pan : Anops 2178 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. B. S. Balachandran, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri. B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri. Srinivasulu Metri, Vs. DCIT, 168/C 18th Ward Near Water Booster, Circle – 1(1) Gandhi Nagar, Bellary – 583 103, Karnataka. Bellary. PAN : ANOPS 2178 Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. B. S. Balachandran, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 13.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 18.12.2025 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member : This is an appeal filed by the asses…

DIOSMA LIFESCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(1) THANE, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4271/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Prabhash Shankardiosma Lifesciences Private V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Limited बनाम 4(1), Qureshi Mansion, Shop No. 77, C-Wing, Gokhale Road, Naupada, Harmony Mall Commercial Thane West, Thane - 400 Premises, Bhagat Singh Nagar 602, Maharashtra No.1, Link Road, Goregaon(West), Mumbai - 400 104, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcd0525R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Aadesh Rai, Addl. CIT, (Virtually appeared)
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…rring patients for treatment in its hospital as business expenditure under section 37 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961” in favour of the Revenue. 9.5 It would be appropriate to refer to hon’ble Apex Court case in Maddi Venkataraman & Co. (P) Ltd vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 534 (SC) P a g e | 17 A.Y. 2018-19 Diosma Lifesciences Private Limited wherein it was held that it would be against public policy to allow the benefit of deduction under one statute, of any expenditure incurred in violation of the provisions of another statute or any penalty imposed under another statute. 10. In the light of above discussion, the p…

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

ITA 770/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Taparia (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a
Section 127Section 127(1)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153C

…surmises. Accordingly it is directed that the profit/loss from the assessee’s transactions with the three Kolkata brokers be assessed as shown in the books of account of the assessee.—Maddi Venkataraman & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1998) 144 CTR (SC) 214 : (1998) 229 ITR 534 (SC), Bombay Stock Exchange vs. Jaya I. Shah & Anr. (2003) 185 CTR (SC) 36 and Asstt. CIT vs. Subhash Chand Shorewala (2004) 91 TTJ (Del) 57 distinguished. Assessee’s share transactions being supported by movement of shares and money as reflected in its bank account, books of account prevalent market quotations, contract notes and delivery bills…

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)

…rity, the same could not be claimed as an expenditure u/s.37 of the Act as the same was a fine paid by the assessee. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Maddi Venkataraman And Co. (P) Ltd., reported in [1998} 229 ITR 534 (SC), 3 wherein it has been held that the expenses incurred in transactions carried out in violation of provisions of FERA and the fines and penalties levied thereunder is not deductible u/s.37 of the Act. It was the submission that as the punitive charges is in the nature of fine paid to the railways authorities, which is a branch of Government…

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 328/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…nditure for the business in question. ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 37 of 41 She submitted that this view is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maddi Venkataraman & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 119981 96 Taxman 643/229 ITR 534. Further, in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bengaluru v. M. Abdul Zahid 120211 133 taxmann.com 72 (Karnataka). Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA held that since 'object of Explanation 1 to section 37(1) is to discourage businesses and professions that are tainted with illegality, no deduction or allowance shall be admis…

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 327/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…nditure for the business in question. ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 37 of 41 She submitted that this view is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maddi Venkataraman & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 119981 96 Taxman 643/229 ITR 534. Further, in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bengaluru v. M. Abdul Zahid 120211 133 taxmann.com 72 (Karnataka). Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA held that since 'object of Explanation 1 to section 37(1) is to discourage businesses and professions that are tainted with illegality, no deduction or allowance shall be admis…

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 326/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…nditure for the business in question. ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 37 of 41 She submitted that this view is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maddi Venkataraman & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 119981 96 Taxman 643/229 ITR 534. Further, in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bengaluru v. M. Abdul Zahid 120211 133 taxmann.com 72 (Karnataka). Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA held that since 'object of Explanation 1 to section 37(1) is to discourage businesses and professions that are tainted with illegality, no deduction or allowance shall be admis…

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 325/BANG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…nditure for the business in question. ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 37 of 41 She submitted that this view is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maddi Venkataraman & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 119981 96 Taxman 643/229 ITR 534. Further, in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bengaluru v. M. Abdul Zahid 120211 133 taxmann.com 72 (Karnataka). Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA held that since 'object of Explanation 1 to section 37(1) is to discourage businesses and professions that are tainted with illegality, no deduction or allowance shall be admis…

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 324/BANG/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…nditure for the business in question. ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 37 of 41 She submitted that this view is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maddi Venkataraman & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 119981 96 Taxman 643/229 ITR 534. Further, in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bengaluru v. M. Abdul Zahid 120211 133 taxmann.com 72 (Karnataka). Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA held that since 'object of Explanation 1 to section 37(1) is to discourage businesses and professions that are tainted with illegality, no deduction or allowance shall be admis…

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 323/BANG/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…nditure for the business in question. ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 37 of 41 She submitted that this view is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maddi Venkataraman & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 119981 96 Taxman 643/229 ITR 534. Further, in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bengaluru v. M. Abdul Zahid 120211 133 taxmann.com 72 (Karnataka). Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA held that since 'object of Explanation 1 to section 37(1) is to discourage businesses and professions that are tainted with illegality, no deduction or allowance shall be admis…

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…

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

…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…

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

…. The AO considered the same as payment of penalty and accordingly opined that the same is not allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act. The AO took support of the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maddi Venkataramana & Co (P) Ltd vs. CIT (1998)(229 ITR 534)(SC), wherein 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 some other decisions also, wherein identical view has been expressed. 7.1 The Ld A.R submitted that identical payment made in the case of Veerabhadhrappa Sangappa & Co. (supra) has been ex…

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

…. The AO considered the same as payment of penalty and accordingly opined that the same is not allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act. The AO took support of the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maddi Venkataramana & Co (P) Ltd vs. CIT (1998)(229 ITR 534)(SC), wherein 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 some other decisions also, wherein identical view has been expressed. 7.1 The Ld A.R submitted that identical payment made in the case of Veerabhadhrappa Sangappa & Co. (supra) has been ex…

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

…. The AO considered the same as payment of penalty and accordingly opined that the same is not allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act. The AO took support of the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maddi Venkataramana & Co (P) Ltd vs. CIT (1998)(229 ITR 534)(SC), wherein 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 some other decisions also, wherein identical view has been expressed. 7.1 The Ld A.R submitted that identical payment made in the case of Veerabhadhrappa Sangappa & Co. (supra) has been ex…

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

…. The AO considered the same as payment of penalty and accordingly opined that the same is not allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act. The AO took support of the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maddi Venkataramana & Co (P) Ltd vs. CIT (1998)(229 ITR 534)(SC), wherein 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) M…

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)

…That will be against public policy to allow the benefit of deduction under one statute, of any expenditure incurred in violation of the provisions of another statute or any penalty imposed under another statute [Maddi Venkataraman & Co. (P) Ltd vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 534 (SC)]. Even though the need for making such payments arose out of trading operation, the payments were not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the trade. Infraction 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 exclusivel…

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

…That will be against public policy to allow the benefit of deduction under one statute, of any expenditure incurred in violation of the provisions of another statute or any penalty imposed under another statute [Maddi Venkataramana & Co (P) Ltd Vs CIT (1998) 229 ITR 534 (SC)]. Even though the need for making such payments arose out of trading operations, the payments were not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the trade. In the instant case, if the deductions claimed are allowed, the penalty provisions as per the MMDR Act, 1957, MC Rules, 1960 and MCD Rules, 1988 respectively will become meaningless. It h…

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 3318/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 37

…That will be against public policy to allow the benefit of deduction under one statute, of any expenditure incurred in violation of the provisions of another statute or any penalty imposed under another statute [Maddi Venkataramana & Co (P) Ltd Vs CIT (1998) 229 ITR 534 (SC)]. Even though the need for making such payments arose out of trading operations, the payments were not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the trade. In the instant case, if the deductions claimed are allowed, the penalty provisions as per the MMDR Act, 1957, MC Rules, 1960 and MCD Rules, 1988 respectively will become meaningless. It h…

Showing 1–20 of 72 · Page 1 of 4

Maddi Venkataraman & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 534) — Cited in 72 Judgments | BharatTax