← All Phrases

“prohibited by law”

Business ExpensesSection 37 ExplanationSection 37 Explanation498 judgments

The decision most relied on for prohibited by law is Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (135 Taxmann.com 286), cited in 148 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on prohibited by law

Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
135 Taxmann.com 286 · 2022 · Supreme Court
148
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred by pharmaceutical companies on freebies provided to medical practitioners is not deductible under Explanation 1 to Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, as such gifting is prohibited by the Medical Council Regulations, 2002. The court also held that what is directly prohibited by law cannot be indirectly evaded through contrivance.

Sanjeev Woolen Mills v. CIT
279 ITR 434 · 2005 · Supreme Court
75
citing judgments

The assessee must consistently follow one method of accounting and cannot arbitrarily change it, particularly in contravention of Section 145 of the Income Tax Act. This principle prohibits changes in accounting methods that are not in conformity with the law.

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.

Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. CIT
41 ITR 350 · 1961 · Supreme Court
69
citing judgments

Penalties paid for a breach of law or contravention of statutory provisions are not allowable deductions as business expenditure because they cannot be considered wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the business. This principle is now enshrined in Explanation 1 to Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

CIT v. Kap Scan and Diagnostic Centre (P.) Ltd.
344 ITR 476 · 2012 · High Court
58
citing judgments

Payment of commission to doctors for referring patients to diagnostic centers or providing gifts, freebies, or hospitality to medical practitioners by pharmaceutical companies is against public policy and cannot be allowed as a business expenditure under Section 37(1). Demanding such benefits is unethical on the part of doctors, and paying them is equally unethical on the part of companies.

Claggett Bronchi Co. Ltd. v. CIT
177 ITR 409 · 1989 · Supreme Court
38
citing judgments

Issuing a notice under section 148 after two years from the end of the relevant assessment year is prohibited by law and makes reassessment proceedings void.

PCIT v. Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd.
18 SCC 789 · 2018 · Reported
33
citing judgments

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) overrides other laws, including the Income Tax Act, due to its non-obstante clause in Section 238. Proceedings initiated against a corporate debtor undergoing insolvency are prohibited under Section 14 of the IBC.

Confederation of Indian Pharmaceutical Industry (SSI) v. CBDT
353 ITR 388 · 2013 · High Court
26
citing judgments

Payments made to doctors in violation of Indian Medical Council regulations are considered opposed to public policy and are not deductible as business expenditure under section 37(1). Such payments are to be discouraged.

Judgments citing prohibited by law

M/S Kiran Roadlines, Gandhidham vs. The Assistant Commr. of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 27/RJT/2019[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot03 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 27/Rjt/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15) M/S. Kiran Roadlines Assistant Commissioner बनाम/ “Kiran House”, P.O. Box Of Income Tax Vs. No.234, Plot No.8, Sector Gandhidham Circle, No.8, Gandhidham Gandhidham "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakfk1640C .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 02/01/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 03/01/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.12.2018 Passed By The Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Rajkot (‘The Cit(A)’), Arising Out Of The

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 37

provision of explanation to Section 37 of the Act, any expenditure incurred by an assessee for any 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 shall be allowed. The First Appellate Authority confirmed