← 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

Agra Obstetrical and Gynaecological Society, Agra vs. PCIT, Central, Pune

ITA 549/PUN/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.518/Pun/2023 1. Poona Obstetrics & Gynaecological Society, 302/303, Dr. Neety Mandke Ima House, Tilak Road, Shukrawar Peth, Pune 411 002, Maharashtra Pan : Aaatp1435C Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.522/Pun/2023 2. The Mumbai Obstetrics & Gynaecological Society, C-114, Ist Floor, D-Wing Entrance, Trade World, Kamala City, Senapati Bapat Marg, Low Parel (W), Mumbai-400 013 Maharashtra Pan : Aaatt4562C Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.549/Pun/2023 3. Agra Obstetrical & Gynaecological Society, 84, M.G. Road, Agra 282 010, Uttar Pradesh Pan : Aabta6327K Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.417/Pun/2023 4. Aids Society Of India, Ground Floor, Maharukh Mandsion, Alibhai Premji Marg, Grant Road (E), Mumbai 400 007 Maharashtra Pan : Aabta4129R Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central), Pune Appellant Respondent 2

Section 12A

issued by Medical Council of India under Medical Council Regulations, 2002, Gifting of such freebies by Pharmaceutical Companies to Medical Practitioners is also prohibited by law and thus expenditure incurred in distribution of such freebies would not be allowed as deduction in terms of Explanation 1 to section ... Medical Council of India under MCI Regulations, 2002, as such gifting of such freebies by pharmaceutical company to medical practitioners would also be prohibited by law. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Court has rejected the contention that MCI Regulations, 2002 is applicable only to the doctors

The Mumbai Obstetric Gynaecological Society, Low Parel (W) vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Pune

ITA 522/PUN/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.518/Pun/2023 1. Poona Obstetrics & Gynaecological Society, 302/303, Dr. Neety Mandke Ima House, Tilak Road, Shukrawar Peth, Pune 411 002, Maharashtra Pan : Aaatp1435C Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.522/Pun/2023 2. The Mumbai Obstetrics & Gynaecological Society, Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune C-114, Ist Floor, D-Wing Entrance, Trade World, Kamala City, Senapati Bapat Marg, Low Parel (W), Mumbai-400 013 Maharashtra Pan : Aaatt4562C Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.549/Pun/2023 3. Agra Obstetrical & Gynaecological Society, 84, M.G. Road, Agra 282 010, Uttar Pradesh Pan : Aabta6327K Appellant Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.417/Pun/2023 4. Aids Society Of India, Ground Floor, Maharukh Mandsion, Alibhai Premji Marg, Grant Road (E), Mumbai 400 007 Maharashtra Pan : Aabta4129R Appellant Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central), Pune Respondent 2

Section 12A

issued by Medical Council of India under Medical Council Regulations, 2002, Gifting of such freebies by Pharmaceutical Companies to Medical Practitioners is also prohibited by law and thus expenditure incurred in distribution of such freebies would not be allowed as deduction in terms of Explanation 1 to section ... Medical Council of India under MCI Regulations, 2002, as such gifting of such freebies by pharmaceutical company to medical practitioners would also be prohibited by law. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Court has rejected the contention that MCI Regulations, 2002 is applicable only to the doctors

Poona Obstetrics and Gynaecological Society, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Central, Pune

ITA 518/PUN/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.518/Pun/2023 1. Poona Obstetrics & Gynaecological Society, 302/303, Dr. Neety Mandke Ima House, Tilak Road, Shukrawar Peth, Pune 411 002, Maharashtra Pan : Aaatp1435C Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.522/Pun/2023 2. The Mumbai Obstetrics & Gynaecological Society, Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune C-114, Ist Floor, D-Wing Entrance, Trade World, Kamala City, Senapati Bapat Marg, Low Parel (W), Mumbai-400 013 Maharashtra Pan : Aaatt4562C Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.549/Pun/2023 3. Agra Obstetrical & Gynaecological Society, 84, M.G. Road, Agra 282 010, Uttar Pradesh Pan : Aabta6327K Appellant Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.417/Pun/2023 Vs. Principal Commissioner 4. Aids Society Of India, Ground Floor, Maharukh Mandsion, Alibhai Premji Marg, Grant Road (E), Mumbai 400 007 Maharashtra Pan : Aabta4129R Appellant Of Income-Tax (Central), Pune Respondent 2

Section 12A

issued by Medical Council of India under Medical Council Regulations, 2002, Gifting of such freebies by Pharmaceutical Companies to Medical Practitioners is also prohibited by law and thus expenditure incurred in distribution of such freebies would not be allowed as deduction in terms of Explanation 1 to section ... Medical Council of India under MCI Regulations, 2002, as such gifting of such freebies by pharmaceutical company to medical practitioners would also be prohibited by law. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Court has rejected the contention that MCI Regulations, 2002 is applicable only to the doctors

Aids Society of India, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Pune

ITA 417/PUN/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.518/Pun/2023 1. Poona Obstetrics & Gynaecological Society, 302/303, Dr. Neety Mandke Ima House, Tilak Road, Shukrawar Peth, Pune 411 002, Maharashtra Pan : Aaatp1435C Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.522/Pun/2023 2. The Mumbai Obstetrics & Gynaecological Society, C-114, Ist Floor, D-Wing Entrance, Trade World, Kamala City, Senapati Bapat Marg, Low Parel (W), Mumbai-400 013 Maharashtra Pan : Aaatt4562C Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.549/Pun/2023 3. Agra Obstetrical & Gynaecological Society, 84, M.G. Road, Agra 282 010, Uttar Pradesh Pan : Aabta6327K Vs. Pr.Cit (Central), Pune Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.417/Pun/2023 4. Aids Society Of India, Ground Floor, Maharukh Mandsion, Alibhai Premji Marg, Grant Road (E), Mumbai 400 007 Maharashtra Pan : Aabta4129R Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central), Pune Appellant Respondent 2

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 12A

issued by Medical Council of India under Medical Council Regulations, 2002, Gifting of such freebies by Pharmaceutical Companies to Medical Practitioners is also prohibited by law and thus expenditure incurred in distribution of such freebies would not be allowed as deduction in terms of Explanation 1 to section ... Medical Council of India under MCI Regulations, 2002, as such gifting of such freebies by pharmaceutical company to medical practitioners would also be prohibited by law. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Court has rejected the contention that MCI Regulations, 2002 is applicable only to the doctors

Union Bank of India, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 365/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan &For Respondent: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

deviation in implementation of KYC-AML guidelines is penal in nature for violation of any law, which is an offence, or which is prohibited by law and therefore, cannot be allowed as deduction. The Assessing Officer had also distinguished the case law relied upon by the assessee in the case