← 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

M/S. Prestige Estates Projects Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 69/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Prestige Estates Projects The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of Prestige Falcon Tower, Income Tax, No. 19, Brunton Road, Central Circle – 1 Bangalore – North, (1), Bangalore – 560 025. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcp8096K Appellant Respondent : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 19-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 23.11.2021 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein Below Are Independent & Without Prejudice To The Other Grounds Preferred By The Appellant. 1. General Ground 1.1 The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bengaluru (`Ao") Has Erred In Passing The Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act-) In The Manner Passed By Him & The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Bangalore

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154

shows that a conscious decision, whether right or wrong, had been taken by the AO in making additions on account of compounding fee; illegal payments; disallowance under Section 14A of the Act and project management fee. This is not apparent from the assessment order of the AO as to whether ... while passing the assessment order on 28.03.2016 assessed the total income at Rs.481,36,97,166/- after making addition on account of compounding fee, illegal payments, disallowance u/s. 14A and project management fee amounting to Rs.6,87,07,116/-. The Ld.AO computed tax payable after considering the taxes paid