Held that the assessee could not substantiate how payment was made at the check post and police charges was not covered under Explanation 1 to Section 37 of the Act. Since the amounts paid at the check post and the police charges were expenditure incurred by the assessee which was in the nature of an offence or which was prohibited by law, there was no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) sustaining the addition.(AY. 2014-15)
Diwakar Logistics v. ACIT (2022) 98 ITR 24 (SN) (Hyd.)(Trib.)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Payment made at check post and police charges-Expenditure in nature of offence or prohibited by law-Disallowance is proper. [S. 37, Expln. 1]