← 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

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

ITA 2840/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT (DR) Shri
Section 37(1)

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

ITA 2839/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT (DR) Shri
Section 37(1)

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

ITA 2838/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT (DR) Shri
Section 37(1)

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

ITA 2837/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT (DR) Shri
Section 37(1)

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

ITA 2836/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT (DR) Shri
Section 37(1)

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

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 812/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred by an 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 ... doubts, it is hereby clarified that the expression "expenditure incurred by an assessee for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law" under Explanation 1, shall include and shall be deemed to have always included the expenditure incurred by an assessee- (i) for any purpose which

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre Circle -1, Jaipur

ITA 810/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

submission to the issue of “purpose which is an offence” and has not addressed the issue of expenditure for the purpose which is “prohibited by law and even though may not be an offence”, which is not correct. Going further, ld.CIT(A) at page 65 quoted certain decisions as “Judgements

Devika Buildestate Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 525/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

handling were done beyond working hours, such payments were made either through labour or workers’ union. It could not be considered to be prohibited by law. The assessee could not be expected to take receipts from individual workers or make payment by way of cheques. The payment was made

Atharva Foundries Private Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Comissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 113/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri R.C. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37

well accepted legal position that Explanation 1 to section 37 covers only penalties levied for any purpose which is an offence or prohibited by law. He further failed to understand that over drawings of any facility limit provided by any Bank is neither an offence nor prohibited by any law ... with Explanation 1 as the expenses has not been incurred by the assessee for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law. He submitted that 4 ITA No.113/PUN/2025, AY 2016-17 overdrawing of cash credit facility cannot be considered as an offence or prohibited by law

Mahasakthi Bio Enercon Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 467/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:467/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mahasakthi Bio Enercon Private Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Vs. Income Tax, No.64, Dr. Nanjappa Road, Central Circle -1, Coimbatore – 641 018. Coimbatore. [Pan:Aabci-0022-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T.

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

u/s.37(1) of the Act. The expenditure which is incurred by the assessee for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law to subject to disallowance u/s.37(1) of the Act. The amount paid towards penalty and charges are in the nature of contractual terms which ... were entered and the expenditure is not in the nature of any offence or which is prohibited by law. Hence could not be part of section 263 direction from the ld.PCIT to Assessing Officer. :-8-: ITA. No:467/Chny/2025 16. Thus, the ld.AR submitted that in the instant case the notice

Anunta Technology Management Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2407/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailanunta Technology Management Services Ltd., Level – 2, Block – 6, Nirlon Knowledge Park, Goregaon East, S.O. Mumbai ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400063 Pan : Aakca6159M V/S Dcit – 4(1)(1), ……………… Respondent Mumbai Assessee By : Shri K.K. Ved Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 37(1)

doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred by an 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

The Asst. CIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda vs. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited, Baroda

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2033/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR &
Section 115JSection 14ASection 50

ceiling. Therefore, the demand was penal in nature, and under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, any expenditure incurred for a purpose prohibited by law cannot be treated as incurred for business purposes and thus is not allowable. Finally, even if the liability were assumed to be allowable

Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1807/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR &
Section 115JSection 14ASection 50

ceiling. Therefore, the demand was penal in nature, and under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, any expenditure incurred for a purpose prohibited by law cannot be treated as incurred for business purposes and thus is not allowable. Finally, even if the liability were assumed to be allowable

Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1)(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 954/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R
Section 115JSection 144Section 50

ceiling. Therefore, the demand was penal in nature, and under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, any expenditure incurred for a purpose prohibited by law cannot be treated as incurred for business purposes and thus is not allowable. Finally, even if the liability were assumed to be allowable

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Ambalal Sarabhi Enterprises Limited, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1315/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR &
Section 115JSection 144Section 50

ceiling. Therefore, the demand was penal in nature, and under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, any expenditure incurred for a purpose prohibited by law cannot be treated as incurred for business purposes and thus is not allowable. Finally, even if the liability were assumed to be allowable

Late Ms. Shahedabegum Shaikh Akram Through Legal Reperesentative Mr. Akram Shaikh, Umred vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 338/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anand Nagrale, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

denial of the tax benefit cannot be construed as penalizing the assessee pharmaceutical company. Only its participation in what is plainly an action prohibited by law, precludes the Assessee from claiming it as a deductible expenditure.” 5.4 It is the also mandate of law that it is the onerous duty

ACIT Circle, 3(4), Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2119/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2037/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2038/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Union Bank Of India, Finance & Accounts, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 V/S. बनाम Dcit, Circle- (Ltu) 2, Mumbai Room No. 421, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0564G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2119/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2118/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Acit, Circle-3(4), Mumbai Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 V/S. Union Bank Of India, Finance & Accounts, Union बनाम Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0564G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Page 2

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Vikas K. Suryawanshi
Section 144Section 14A

before the CIT(A) that the impugned amount is not an expenditure incurred for any purchase which is an offence or which is prohibited by law. The assessee further submitted that it was paid to RBI for deficiencies found in the working of currency chest on various parameters i.e. soiled ... made by the Assessee to the Stock Exchange for violation of their regulation are not on account of an offence or which is prohibited by law. Hence, the invocation of explanation to section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not justified. In our opinion, in the facts

ACIT, Circle -3(4), Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2118/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2037/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2038/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Union Bank Of India, Finance & Accounts, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 V/S. बनाम Dcit, Circle- (Ltu) 2, Mumbai Room No. 421, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0564G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2119/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2118/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Acit, Circle-3(4), Mumbai Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 V/S. बनाम Union Bank Of India, Finance & Accounts, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0564G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Page 2

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Vikas K. Suryawanshi
Section 144Section 14A

before the CIT(A) that the impugned amount is not an expenditure incurred for any purchase which is an offence or which is prohibited by law. The assessee further submitted that it was paid to RBI for deficiencies found in the working of currency chest on various parameters i.e. soiled ... made by the Assessee to the Stock Exchange for violation of their regulation are not on account of an offence or which is prohibited by law. Hence, the invocation of explanation to section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not justified. In our opinion, in the facts

M/S Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-(Ltu) 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2038/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2037/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2038/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22)

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Vikas K. Suryawanshi
Section 144Section 14A

before the CIT(A) that the impugned amount is not an expenditure incurred for any purchase which is an offence or which is prohibited by law. The assessee further submitted that it was paid to RBI for deficiencies found in the working of currency chest on various parameters i.e. soiled ... made by the Assessee to the Stock Exchange for violation of their regulation are not on account of an offence or which is prohibited by law. Hence, the invocation of explanation to section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not justified. In our opinion, in the facts

M/S Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-(Ltu)-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2037/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2037/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2038/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Union Bank Of India, Finance & Accounts, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0564G Appellant/अपीलार्थी V/S. बनाम Dcit, Circle- (Ltu) 2, Mumbai Room No. 421, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2119/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2118/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Acit, Circle-3(4), Mumbai Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 V/S. Union Bank Of India, बनाम | Finance & Accounts, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0564G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Page 2

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Vikas K. Suryawanshi
Section 144Section 14A

before the CIT(A) that the impugned amount is not an expenditure incurred for any purchase which is an offence or which is prohibited by law. The assessee further submitted that it was paid to RBI for deficiencies found in the working of currency chest on various parameters i.e. soiled ... made by the Assessee to the Stock Exchange for violation of their regulation are not on account of an offence or which is prohibited by law. Hence, the invocation of explanation to section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not justified. In our opinion, in the facts