COURT: | Bombay High Court |
CORAM: | Akil Kureshi J, B. P. Colabawalla J |
SECTION(S): | Explanation to s. 37 |
GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
CATCH WORDS: | business expenditure |
COUNSEL: | Vikram Nankani |
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.
Recent Comments