“prohibited by law”

DCIT-CC-8(4), Mumbai vs. Savita Oil Technologies Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit-Cc-8(4), Savita Oil Technologies Limited Mumbai 66-67 Nariman Bhavan, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021, Pan: Aaacs7934A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Yogesh Thar & Shri Chaitanya Joshi, Cas Revenue : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Cit (A) 50, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1075632908(1), Dated 15.04.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Acit,Cc- 8(4), Mumbai, U/S.143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 24.08.2021 For Ay 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Was Justified In Law In Allowing Deduction Under Section 80-Ia(4) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961, Without Adjusting The Losses Incurred By The Eligible Undertaking Prior To The Initial Assessment Year, Contrary To The Provisions Of Section 80-Ia(S)? 2. Whether The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Was Correct In Law In Relying Upon Cbdt Circular No. 1/2016 & The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Madras High Court In The Case Of Vcllayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. (340 Itr 477) When There Exist Contrary Binding Judicial Precedents Mandating That Losses Of Earlier Years, Even

fell within the exception where the disallowance could be made only when it is in relation to offence or for anything prohibited by law for the time being in force. The said interest payment was compensatory in nature on account of delayed deposit of IGST and is not on account ... there is any in fraction of law or whether the expenditure is incurred for any purpose, which is an offence or which is prohibited by law, is generally to be decided by the authority or the court empowered to do so, under the respective law. In the case before

Diosma Lifesciences Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(1) Thane, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Prabhash Shankardiosma Lifesciences Private V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Limited बनाम 4(1), Qureshi Mansion, Shop No. 77, C-Wing, Gokhale Road, Naupada, Harmony Mall Commercial Thane West, Thane - 400 Premises, Bhagat Singh Nagar 602, Maharashtra No.1, Link Road, Goregaon(West), Mumbai - 400 104, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcd0525R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

this subsection denies claim of any such expense, if the same has been incurred for a purpose which is either an offence or prohibited by law. Thus, the claim of any expense incurred in providing above mentioned or similar freebees in violation of the provisions of Indian Medical Council (Professional ... section denies claim of any such expense, if the same has been incurred for a purpose which is either an offence or prohibited by law 5.2 In view of above facts, the AO concluded that genuineness of claim of expenses could not be established though the onus

Niket Ramesh Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle -1 Thane, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Mr. Niket Ramesh Shah Acit Central Circle 401, Radheshayam Chsl 1, Thane Vishnu Nagar, Naupada Vs. Thane West-400 602. Pan : Appellant Respondent

business or profession of the assessee; (v) Expenditure has not been incurred for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law. 3. The Ld. AR of the appellant also relied on several decisions including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

DCIT, CC-6(2), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai

Appeals are partly allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

aggregators is totally different from commission paid to agents towards insurance policy. The assessee further submitted that the payment made is neither prohibited by law nor an offence under Insurance Act. Hence, no disallowance u/s 37 can be made. 7. The AO however, was not convinced with the submissions ... unsustainable. Without prejudice, he submitted, as per Explanation-1 to Section 37 of the Act, no payment which is an offence or prohibited by law can be claimed as deduction. Drawing our attention to Section 40(1) of the Insurance Act, leaned counsel submitted, none of the condition

DCIT, CC-6(2), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai

Appeals are partly allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

aggregators is totally different from commission paid to agents towards insurance policy. The assessee further submitted that the payment made is neither prohibited by law nor an offence under Insurance Act. Hence, no disallowance u/s 37 can be made. 7. The AO however, was not convinced with the submissions ... unsustainable. Without prejudice, he submitted, as per Explanation-1 to Section 37 of the Act, no payment which is an offence or prohibited by law can be claimed as deduction. Drawing our attention to Section 40(1) of the Insurance Act, leaned counsel submitted, none of the condition

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai

Appeals are partly allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

aggregators is totally different from commission paid to agents towards insurance policy. The assessee further submitted that the payment made is neither prohibited by law nor an offence under Insurance Act. Hence, no disallowance u/s 37 can be made. 7. The AO however, was not convinced with the submissions ... unsustainable. Without prejudice, he submitted, as per Explanation-1 to Section 37 of the Act, no payment which is an offence or prohibited by law can be claimed as deduction. Drawing our attention to Section 40(1) of the Insurance Act, leaned counsel submitted, none of the condition

DCIT, CC-6(2), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai

Appeals are partly allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

aggregators is totally different from commission paid to agents towards insurance policy. The assessee further submitted that the payment made is neither prohibited by law nor an offence under Insurance Act. Hence, no disallowance u/s 37 can be made. 7. The AO however, was not convinced with the submissions ... unsustainable. Without prejudice, he submitted, as per Explanation-1 to Section 37 of the Act, no payment which is an offence or prohibited by law can be claimed as deduction. Drawing our attention to Section 40(1) of the Insurance Act, leaned counsel submitted, none of the condition

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

Appeals are partly allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

aggregators is totally different from commission paid to agents towards insurance policy. The assessee further submitted that the payment made is neither prohibited by law nor an offence under Insurance Act. Hence, no disallowance u/s 37 can be made. 7. The AO however, was not convinced with the submissions ... unsustainable. Without prejudice, he submitted, as per Explanation-1 to Section 37 of the Act, no payment which is an offence or prohibited by law can be claimed as deduction. Drawing our attention to Section 40(1) of the Insurance Act, leaned counsel submitted, none of the condition