| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
March 15, 2013 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
Explanation to S. 37(1): No disallowance for compensatory payments
The assessee, a manufacturer of garments, was granted an entitlement by the Apparel Export Promotion Council (APEC) for export of garments and knit wares. In consideration for the export entitlement the assessee furnished a bank guarantee in support of its commitment that it shall abide by the terms and conditions and produce proof of shipment. It was also provided that failure to fulfill the export obligation would render the bank guarantee to being forfeited/encashed. The assessee did not utilize the export entitlement which led APEC to encash the bank guarantee. The assessee recorded the said payment as penalty in its books of account and claimed deduction u/s 37(1). The AO rejected the claim on the ground that as the payment was by way of “penalty” it could not be allowed under the Explanation to s. 37(1). However, the CIT(A) and ITAT allowed the claim. On appeal by the department to the High Court, HELD dismissing the appeal:
The assessee took a business decision not to honour its commitment of fulfilling the export entitlement in view of loss being suffered by it. The genuineness of the claim of expenditure being for business purpose is not disputed. The assessee has not contravened any provision of law and the forfeiture of the bank guarantee is compensatory in nature and does not attract the Explanation to s. 37(1).
Related Posts:
- Ventura Textiles Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) Concealment of particulars of income was not the charge against the appellant, the charge being furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. As discussed above, it is trite that penalty cannot be imposed for alleged breach of one limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act while penalty proceedings were initiated for breach…
- M/s. J. S. & M. F. Builders vs. A. K. Chauhan (Bombay High Court) According to the Assessing Officer, assessee had erred in offering to tax ‘capital gains’ in the year when the individual flats were sold whereas such ‘capital gains’ could be assessed to tax only when the land is trasferred to the co-operative society formed by the flat purchasers. If the assessee…
- PCIT vs. ITAT (Bombay High Court) The use of the expression “may” in the aforesaid provision is clearly indicative of the legislative intent that the limitation period of six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed is not to be construed in such a manner that there can not be…
- PCIT vs. JSW Steel Ltd (Bombay High Court) In view of the second proviso to Section 153A(1) of the said Act, once assessment gets abated, it is open for the assessee to lodge a new claim in a proceeding under Section 153A(1) which was not claimed in his regular return of income, because assessment was never made/finalised in…
- Tata Communications Ltd vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) Although the respondents purport to contend that proper procedure had been followed, record does not bear that there had been any communication made to the petitioner as to its submissions being not acceptable before or at the time of making the adjustment. Decisions in the cases of “A. N. Shaikh”,…
- SYSKA LED Lights Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) In the light of the discussions made above, we are of the unhesitant view that the impugned order in original is clearly unsustainable in law being in violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the statutory provisions as alluded to hereinabove. In the circumstances, relegating the petitioner…
Leave a Reply