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

229 ITR 534Supreme Court of India1998#1573 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 366,339 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)
Read the full judgment

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

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 3317/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

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…

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri.M Abdul Zahid

ITA/100033/2018HC Karnataka19 Jul 2021

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

Section 260A

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ITA NO.100034/2018 C/W. ITA NO.100026/2018 ITA NO.100027/2018 ITA NO.100028/2018 ITA NO.100033/2018 IN ITA NO.100034/2018 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU. 2. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SHROFF COLONY, SHRADDHA BUILDING, KHANAPUR ROAD, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI. ...APPELLANTS. (BY SHRI Y V RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE.) AND: SHRI M. ABDUL ZAHID #310/A, SMSK PLAZA, 2 HOSAPETE, K…

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Jay Minerals

ITA/100026/2018HC Karnataka19 Jul 2021

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

Section 260A

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ITA NO.100034/2018 C/W. ITA NO.100026/2018 ITA NO.100027/2018 ITA NO.100028/2018 ITA NO.100033/2018 IN ITA NO.100034/2018 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU. 2. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SHROFF COLONY, SHRADDHA BUILDING, KHANAPUR ROAD, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI. ...APPELLANTS. (BY SHRI Y V RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE.) AND: SHRI M. ABDUL ZAHID #310/A, SMSK PLAZA, 2 HOSAPETE, K…

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri.M. Abdul Zahid

ITA/100034/2018HC Karnataka19 Jul 2021

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

Section 260A

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ITA NO.100034/2018 C/W. ITA NO.100026/2018 ITA NO.100027/2018 ITA NO.100028/2018 ITA NO.100033/2018 IN ITA NO.100034/2018 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU. 2. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SHROFF COLONY, SHRADDHA BUILDING, KHANAPUR ROAD, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI. ...APPELLANTS. (BY SHRI Y V RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE.) AND: SHRI M. ABDUL ZAHID #310/A, SMSK PLAZA, 2 HOSAPETE, K…

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 315/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 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 he said to be an amount wholly and exclusivel…

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 314/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 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 he said to be an amount wholly and exclusivel…

Ashwathnarayana Singh and Co, Bellry vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result appeal is filed by assessee for year under consideration stands allowed

ITA 522/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Laxminiwas Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 37

…section 37 (1) of the Act. Ld.CIT(A) followed decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros. vs. CIT, 41 ITR 350 (SC), Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 79 ITR 514 (SC) and Maddi Venkatraman & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT, 229 ITR 534 (SC). 4.1 On the second issue Ld.CIT(A) , upheld he addition by LD.AO. Ld.AIT(A) held that, no where in the Income Tax Act, particularly such nature of expenditure is allowable under section 37. The Ld.CIT(A) taking recourse under Explanation 1 to Page 6 of 31 Section 37, upheld the disallowance being penalty for breach of law. 6. Aggrieved by…

M/S. Veerabhadrappa Sangappa & Company, Sandur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1054/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013–14

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT
Section 145Section 28Section 5

…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. (F) 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. 5.3) 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 excl…

M/S. Ramgad Minerals & Mining Limited, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Bellary

In the result appeal filed by assessee for A

ITA 1271/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shree Vijay Mehta, C. AFor Respondent: Shree Muzaffar Hussain, CIT DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 37(1)Section 80I

…ction 37 (1) of the Act. Ld. CIT (A) followed decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros. vs. CIT, 41 ITR 350 (SC), Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 79 ITR 514 (SC) and Maddi Venkatraman & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT, 229 ITR 534 (SC). ITA No. 212 & 589/Bang/2020 Asst.Yrs:2013-14 &2014-15 Page 6 of 33 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us now for both years under consideration. 7. At the outset, Ld.AR submitted that only two kinds of disallowance have been made by Ld.AO pertaining to mining activity carried on by assessee for years…

M/S. Ramgad Minerals and Mining Limited, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Bellary

In the result appeal filed by assessee for A

ITA 1270/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shree Vijay Mehta, C. AFor Respondent: Shree Muzaffar Hussain, CIT DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 37(1)Section 80I

…ction 37 (1) of the Act. Ld. CIT (A) followed decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros. vs. CIT, 41 ITR 350 (SC), Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 79 ITR 514 (SC) and Maddi Venkatraman & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT, 229 ITR 534 (SC). ITA No. 212 & 589/Bang/2020 Asst.Yrs:2013-14 &2014-15 Page 6 of 33 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us now for both years under consideration. 7. At the outset, Ld.AR submitted that only two kinds of disallowance have been made by Ld.AO pertaining to mining activity carried on by assessee for years…

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)

…be noted that in this case, there is no infringement of statue but damages sought by BMC.” However, the AO was not convinced with the above reply of the assessee and relying on the decision in Indian Aluminium Company Ltd. 79 ITR 514, Maddi Venkatraman & Co. 229 ITR 534, Mamata Enterprise 266 ITR 356 and Millenia Developers P. Ltd. 322 ITR 401, made an addition of the BMC charges of Rs.38,52,000/-. M/s Vighnaharata Builders 3 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). We find that vide appellate order dated 28.08.2017, the Ld. CIT(A) proposed an enhancement of Rs.5,1…

Pfizer Ltd., Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT - 14(2) (Erstwhile Addl. CIT. Range 8(2)), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 4826/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER : A.Y : 2010-11 M/s. Pfizer Limited Vs. JCIT - 14(2), 1802/1901, The Capital, Mumbai. (Respondent) Plot No. C-70, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. PAN : AAACP3334M (Appellant) Appellant by : Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Shri Jeet Kamdar Respondent by : Shri Chaitanya Anjaria Date of Hearing : 24/06/2019 Date of Pronouncement : 30/08/2019 O R D E R PER G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against an order…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(1), Mumbai vs. Indoco Remedies Limited, Mumbai

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4590/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumardcit-Cent. Cir-6(1), Vs M/S Indoco Remedies Ltd, Room No.1905,19Th Floor, Indoco House, 166 Cst Road, Air India Building, Santacruz (East) Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 098 Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaaci0380C Appellant Respondednt

Section 154Section 80I

…ing that prohibition by Indian Medical Council (IMC), Regulations (IMC) 2009 is applicable on medical practitioner and not on Pharmaceutical companies without appreciating that apex court in case of Maddi Venkatraman & Company Private Limited versus CIT[1998] 229 ITR 534 has adjudicated that it would be “against the public policy” to allow under one statue the benefit of deduction of expenditure incurred in violation of the provisions of another statue. 3. Brief facts of the case as extracted from the order of lower authorities are that assessee is a company engaged in manufacturing of Pharmaceuticals and tradin…

DCIT, Mangalore vs. M/S Delta Infralogistics Worldwide Ltd, Mangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 819/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

…taka in the case of M/s Konkan Marine Agencies was accepted by the Department only on the monitory limit and not on principle. 1.5 The Ld. C.I.T (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact the in the case Sri Maddi Venkataraman and Co. (p) Ltd. v. CIT reported in 229 ITR 534 (1998), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly stated that any payment for infraction of law cannot be allowed. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the disallowance of 2. Rs. 31,59,286/- made u/s. 37(1) of the I.T.Act as the expenditure incurred towards tipper mamool by the assessee was prohibited by law and opposed to public policy. That on t…

DCIT, Mangalore vs. M/S Delta Infralogistics Worldwide Ltd, Mangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 818/BANG/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

…taka in the case of M/s Konkan Marine Agencies was accepted by the Department only on the monitory limit and not on principle. 1.5 The Ld. C.I.T (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact the in the case Sri Maddi Venkataraman and Co. (p) Ltd. v. CIT reported in 229 ITR 534 (1998), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly stated that any payment for infraction of law cannot be allowed. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the disallowance of 2. Rs. 31,59,286/- made u/s. 37(1) of the I.T.Act as the expenditure incurred towards tipper mamool by the assessee was prohibited by law and opposed to public policy. That on t…

M/S Delta Infralogistics Worldwide Limited, Mangalore vs. ACIT, Mangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 776/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

…taka in the case of M/s Konkan Marine Agencies was accepted by the Department only on the monitory limit and not on principle. 1.5 The Ld. C.I.T (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact the in the case Sri Maddi Venkataraman and Co. (p) Ltd. v. CIT reported in 229 ITR 534 (1998), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly stated that any payment for infraction of law cannot be allowed. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the disallowance of 2. Rs. 31,59,286/- made u/s. 37(1) of the I.T.Act as the expenditure incurred towards tipper mamool by the assessee was prohibited by law and opposed to public policy. That on t…

M/S Delta Infralogistics Worldwide Limited, Mangalore vs. ACIT, Mangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 774/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

…taka in the case of M/s Konkan Marine Agencies was accepted by the Department only on the monitory limit and not on principle. 1.5 The Ld. C.I.T (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact the in the case Sri Maddi Venkataraman and Co. (p) Ltd. v. CIT reported in 229 ITR 534 (1998), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly stated that any payment for infraction of law cannot be allowed. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the disallowance of 2. Rs. 31,59,286/- made u/s. 37(1) of the I.T.Act as the expenditure incurred towards tipper mamool by the assessee was prohibited by law and opposed to public policy. That on t…

M/S Delta Infralogistics Worldwide Limited, Mangalore vs. ACIT, Mangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 773/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

…taka in the case of M/s Konkan Marine Agencies was accepted by the Department only on the monitory limit and not on principle. 1.5 The Ld. C.I.T (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact the in the case Sri Maddi Venkataraman and Co. (p) Ltd. v. CIT reported in 229 ITR 534 (1998), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly stated that any payment for infraction of law cannot be allowed. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the disallowance of 2. Rs. 31,59,286/- made u/s. 37(1) of the I.T.Act as the expenditure incurred towards tipper mamool by the assessee was prohibited by law and opposed to public policy. That on t…