← All Phrases

“illegal payment”

Business ExpensesSection 37 ExplanationSection 37 Explanation87 judgments

The decision most relied on for illegal payment is Maddi Venkataraman & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 534), cited in 72 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on illegal payment

Maddi Venkataraman & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT
229 ITR 534 · 1998 · Supreme Court
72
citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Konkan Marine Agencies
313 ITR 308 · 2009 · High Court
21
citing judgments

Payments made by a business to labour unions or workers to ensure timely and emergency cargo handling are not prohibited by law and are thus deductible business expenses, even if receipts are not obtained from individual workers or payments are not made by cheque.

6.8 In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Moonlight Builders and Developers
307 ITR 197 · 2008 · High Court
19
citing judgments

The rule of consistency dictates that a position adopted by the revenue in a prior year should not be allowed to be changed in a subsequent year, especially when it relates to the allowability of expenses or other tax treatment.

CIT v. Pt. Vishwanath Sharma
316 ITR 419 · 2009 · High Court
18
citing judgments

Payments made as commission to government doctors for prescribing medicines are considered illegal gratification or bribes and are therefore not allowable as business expenditure under Section 37(1).

CIT v. Raj Rani Export Pvt. Ltd.
361 ITR 152 · 2014 · High Court
15
citing judgments

Commission payments are not to be disallowed if the assessee provides evidence of services rendered, payment through banking channels, and relevant approvals, especially when the Revenue does not contest that services were not rendered at all.

CIT v. Hynuop
290 ITR 702 · 2007 · High Court
11
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 40A(3) may not be practicable for businesses that are inherently illegal, as compliance with payment methods might be impossible.

Mumbai in NSIL Exports Ltd. v. DCIT
152 ITD 634 · 2014 · ITAT
11
citing judgments

A payment made in connection with services rendered by an agent is not illegal if there is no evidence that the assessee intended to make an illegal payment.

Judgments citing illegal payment

Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as above

ITA 375/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Sh. Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd. The Dcit 6Th Floor, Kanchanjunga Circle 7(1), Building New Delhi 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Assessee By: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, F.C.A. Sh. R. K. Kapoor F. C. A. Department By: Sh. Dilip Singh Kothari Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing .06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2023 1. The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against Orders Passed By Ld. Cit (A) Vide The Common Order Dated 22.09.2014 For The A. Y. 2004-05 & A. Y. 2005-06 (I.E., Appeal Nos. 409 To 410/13-14/1560 To 1561) Appeal Relating To A. Y. 2006-07, Is Against Order Dated 07.12.2011 (Appeal No. 419/08- 09/118) For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. In All These Appeals Identical Grounds Of Appeals Have Been Raised Against Certain Common Issues On The Additions 1

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, F.C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Dilip Singh Kothari CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A(2)Section 153CSection 69C

assessee. It has been submitted that under these circumstances making an addition u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act for the alleged illegal payments to any party is wholly unjustified. Assessment Year 2005-06 ITA No. 375/Del/2013 13. Apart from additions made u/s 69C of the Income

Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as above

ITA 374/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Sh. Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd. The Dcit 6Th Floor, Kanchanjunga Circle 7(1), Building New Delhi 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Assessee By: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, F.C.A. Sh. R. K. Kapoor F. C. A. Department By: Sh. Dilip Singh Kothari Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing .06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2023 1. The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against Orders Passed By Ld. Cit (A) Vide The Common Order Dated 22.09.2014 For The A. Y. 2004-05 & A. Y. 2005-06 (I.E., Appeal Nos. 409 To 410/13-14/1560 To 1561) Appeal Relating To A. Y. 2006-07, Is Against Order Dated 07.12.2011 (Appeal No. 419/08- 09/118) For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. In All These Appeals Identical Grounds Of Appeals Have Been Raised Against Certain Common Issues On The Additions 1

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, F.C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Dilip Singh Kothari CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A(2)Section 153CSection 69C

assessee. It has been submitted that under these circumstances making an addition u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act for the alleged illegal payments to any party is wholly unjustified. Assessment Year 2005-06 ITA No. 375/Del/2013 13. Apart from additions made u/s 69C of the Income

Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as above

ITA 641/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Sh. Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd. The Dcit 6Th Floor, Kanchanjunga Circle 7(1), Building New Delhi 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Assessee By: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, F.C.A. Sh. R. K. Kapoor F. C. A. Department By: Sh. Dilip Singh Kothari Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing .06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2023 1. The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against Orders Passed By Ld. Cit (A) Vide The Common Order Dated 22.09.2014 For The A. Y. 2004-05 & A. Y. 2005-06 (I.E., Appeal Nos. 409 To 410/13-14/1560 To 1561) Appeal Relating To A. Y. 2006-07, Is Against Order Dated 07.12.2011 (Appeal No. 419/08- 09/118) For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. In All These Appeals Identical Grounds Of Appeals Have Been Raised Against Certain Common Issues On The Additions 1

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, F.C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Dilip Singh Kothari CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A(2)Section 153CSection 69C

assessee. It has been submitted that under these circumstances making an addition u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act for the alleged illegal payments to any party is wholly unjustified. Assessment Year 2005-06 ITA No. 375/Del/2013 13. Apart from additions made u/s 69C of the Income