Search Results For: Explanation to s. 37


PCIT vs. Sushil Gupta Legal Representative of Late Mahabir Prasad Gupta (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 22, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 26, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 1988-89
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Explanation to s. 37(1): Law on concept of "expenditure incurred for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law" explained in the context of customs redemption fine. Ratio laid down in Hazi Aziz 41 ITR 350 (SC) continues to hold the field even post decisions in the case of Prakah Cotton Mills 201 ITR 684 (SC) and Ahmedabad Cotton Mfg Co 205 ITR 163 (SC). In neither of these two decisions, the ratio laid down in Hazi Aziz, which was a decision of Bench of three Judges, has been diluted (Pannalal Narottamdas 67 ITR 667 (Bom) distinguished)

The Tribunal without adverting to the relevant facts and materials on record granted benefit to the assessee on the lines followed by this Court in the case of Pannalal (supra). The Tribunal without discussing the relevant materials compared the case of the assessee with the facts arising in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Cotton Mfg Co Ltd (supra) in which it was recorded that the fault or defect in the REP licence was not attributable to the assessee and therefore, the assessee was not to be blamed for indulging in any offence or having incurred any expenditure for the purpose which was prohibited by the law.

Mangal Keshav Securities Limited vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 29, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 15, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Expl to s. 37(1): Penalties & fines paid to SEBI, BSE etc for breach of regulatory/ procedural requirements are "compensatory" in nature and not for any purpose which is an ‘offense’ prohibited by the law

An ‘offence’ would be the one which will arise as a result to commission of an action which is prohibited by law, and, in all the given situations, no element of any consent of the parties involved can bring any change in its legal consequences. Similarly, any amount paid by the assessee, in the form of compensation, as a consequence of breach of contract between the two parties, cannot be said to be amount paid for any purpose which is an ‘offence’, prohibited by the law. In other words, under the income tax law, one is required to go into the real nature of the transactions and not to the nomenclature that may have been assigned by the parties. Thus, to decide such issues, we are required to see real substance under the Income Tax Law, and not merely its form. Thus, only those payments, which have been made by the assessee for any purpose which is an ‘offence’ or which is ‘prohibited by law’, shall alone would be hit by the explanation to section 37

DCIT vs. Syncom Formulations (I) Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 23, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 6, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 37(1): While receiving of gifts by doctors is prohibited by MCI Guidelines, the giving of such gifts by Pharma companies is not prohibited by any law. CBDT Circular dated 01.08.2012 is prospective

Receiving of gifts by doctors was prohibited by MCI guidelines, giving of the same by manufacturer is not prohibited under any law for the time being in force. Giving small gifts bearing company logo to doctors does not tantamount to giving gifts to doctors but it is regarded as advertising expenses. As regards sponsoring doctors for conferences and extending hospitality, pharmaceuticals companies have been sponsoring practicing doctors to attend prestigious conferences so that they gather contemporary knowledge about management of certain illness/disease and learn about newer therapies. We found that the disallowance was made by the AO by relying on the CBDT Circular dated 01.08.2012 onwards. However, the Circular was not applicable because it was introduced w.e.f.01.08.2012. i.e. assessment year 2013-2014, whereas the relevant assessment year under consideration is 2010-2011 and 2011-2012

ITO vs. Reliance Share and Stock Brokers (P) Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 22, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 24, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
No S. 14A/ Rule 8D Disallowance if accounts not examined. Consent fee paid to SEBI is not penalty for infraction of law

Re Disallowance made u/s 14A r.w. rule 8D (i) It is now settled principle that the assessing officer has to examine the disallowance made by the assessee by having regard to the accounts of the assessee and only thereafter the

Top