← All Phrases

“prohibited by law”

Business ExpensesSection 37 ExplanationSection 37 Explanation498 judgments

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI vs. SUPERWAYS ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3993/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

raising debit notes. As per section 37, any expenditure incurred by the assesse for purpose, which is an offence or prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business and no deduction can be allowed in respect of such expenditure. In the present

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI vs. SUPERWAYS ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3976/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

raising debit notes. As per section 37, any expenditure incurred by the assesse for purpose, which is an offence or prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business and no deduction can be allowed in respect of such expenditure. In the present

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI vs. SUPERWAYS ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3975/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

raising debit notes. As per section 37, any expenditure incurred by the assesse for purpose, which is an offence or prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business and no deduction can be allowed in respect of such expenditure. In the present

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI vs. SUPERWAYS ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3972/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

raising debit notes. As per section 37, any expenditure incurred by the assesse for purpose, which is an offence or prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business and no deduction can be allowed in respect of such expenditure. In the present

SUPERWAYS ENTERPIRSES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3146/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

raising debit notes. As per section 37, any expenditure incurred by the assesse for purpose, which is an offence or prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business and no deduction can be allowed in respect of such expenditure. In the present

SUPERWAYS ENTERPIRSES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3145/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

raising debit notes. As per section 37, any expenditure incurred by the assesse for purpose, which is an offence or prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business and no deduction can be allowed in respect of such expenditure. In the present

SUPERWAYS ENTERPIRSES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3144/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

raising debit notes. As per section 37, any expenditure incurred by the assesse for purpose, which is an offence or prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business and no deduction can be allowed in respect of such expenditure. In the present

SUPERWAYS ENTERPIRSES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3143/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

raising debit notes. As per section 37, any expenditure incurred by the assesse for purpose, which is an offence or prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business and no deduction can be allowed in respect of such expenditure. In the present

SUPERWAYS ENTERPIRSES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3140/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

raising debit notes. As per section 37, any expenditure incurred by the assesse for purpose, which is an offence or prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business and no deduction can be allowed in respect of such expenditure. In the present

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2806/KOL/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 270ASection 37(1)Section 40C

law as Explanation 1 states that any expenditure incurred by the assessee for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business or profession and no deduction or allowance shall be made in respect

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2804/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 270ASection 37(1)Section 40C

law as Explanation 1 states that any expenditure incurred by the assessee for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business or profession and no deduction or allowance shall be made in respect

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2803/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 270ASection 37(1)Section 40C

law as Explanation 1 states that any expenditure incurred by the assessee for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business or profession and no deduction or allowance shall be made in respect

NAMAKKAL SOUTH INDIA TRANSPORTS,NAMAKKAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, NAMAKKAL

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

ITA 1992/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 37

transporter. 16. The Explanation to section 37(1) disallows expenditure incurred for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law. In the present case, the payment is compensatory in nature, made to indemnify the principal for loss :-6-: ITA. No:1992/Chny/2025 of goods entrusted

OCEAN DIVING CENTRE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMM. OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the appellant is partly allowed for

ITA 6742/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Itat On The Following 4 Issues :

Section 143(3)

amount paid to Customs Department as per Income Tax Law, i.e. if it is not for the purposes prohibited by law, then the same may be allowed after verification. 7 Ocean Diving Centre Limited 9. The last issue raised by appellant company and to be adjudicated relates to certain amounts

OHM DEVELOPERS,SABARKANTHA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1538/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalohm Developers The Acit, Circle Vs. C/O. Bhandari Marketing Income Tax Office 1, Manish Market Himatnagar – 395 001 Nr. Old State Bank Nava Bazar, Himatnagar – 383 001 (Sabarkantha Dist.) [Pan : Aacfo 2907 N] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Tej Shah, Advocate Revenue Represented By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr 27/11/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026

Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 68Section 69A

fully explained by earlier withdrawals from disclosed bank accounts and cash received from customers. It was contended that withdrawal of cash is not prohibited by law, that business prudence cannot be judged by the Assessing Officer, and that the Department cannot step into the shoes of a businessman. The assessee

AXA PARENTERALS LIMITED,UP vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

ITA 5040/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shris. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270Section 37Section 37(1)

nature of damages on late supply and further explained that the nature of damages/penalty on late supply is neither an offence nor prohibited by law therefore damages on late supply cannot be disallowed as per explanation 1 to section 37, being laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose ... Assessee's main contention is that penalty paid to government on account of late supply of medicines is neither offence or nor prohibited by law Therefore allowable expenditure. Assessee relied upon different court decisions which was duty considered and not directly relatable to case. 3.6 Month wise penalty levied

PRAKASH REDDY VATTI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1806/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1806/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Vatti Prakash Reddy, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 018. Ward-11(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Telangana. Pin – 500 017. Pan Aaspv8120C Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca A Vamseedhar राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms P Sumitha, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 23.01.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA A VamseedharFor Respondent: MS P Sumitha, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 144B(7)(vii)Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151ASection 250(6)Section 69A

several months between cash withdrawals and redeposits without considering the social and practical reasons for such cash holdings, which is not prohibited by law, as supported by the decision in Dy. CIT v. Gordhan (Delhi Tribunal, 2019). 7. That the reopening proceedings violated the provisions of faceless assessment mandated under

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 1697/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2014-15
Section 115J

{"clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA\nBefore\nSHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 1696/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2013-14
Section 115J

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nKOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA\nBefore\nSHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n

M/S COAL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA

ITA 1407/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2014-15
Section 115J

based on surmise and\nconjecture. As per 37(1) of the Act, any expense in the nature of any offence\nwhich is prohibited by law is to be disallowed. In the given case, mine\nclosure is part of the mining activity and is not any offence prohibited by\nlaw ... examined\nas to whether the fine or penalty imposed was for any purpose which is\nan offence or which is prohibited by law or the same was incurred for\ncontinuation of the business of the assessee. In the case of R.B. Seth\nMoolchand Suganchand

Showing 1–20 of 498 · Page 1 of 25

...