The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Bombay Industrial Corporation
High Court
02 Jul 2008 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Bombay Industrial Corporation
Date of order
02 Jul 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Bombay Industrial Corporation, the High Court (2008) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: Revenue has preferred this appeal on the following question : "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the penalty paid for violation of legal provisions is allowable as deduction?" .
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 121 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant
Versus
M/s. Bombay Industrial Corporation.. Respondent
Mr. A.S.Rao for the Appellant.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ.DATED: JULY 02, 2008
CORAM: F.I.
K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ.
DATED: JULY 02, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
P.C.
. Revenue has preferred this appeal on the
following question :
"Whether in the facts and circumstances of
the case and in law, the Tribunal was
justified in holding that the penalty paid
for violation of legal provisions is
allowable as deduction?"
. The learned C.I.T. (A) relied on the judgment in
Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 201 ITR
684 of the Supreme Court and considering the
language of Section 37(1) held that the Assessing
Authority is required to examine the scheme of the
provisions of the relevant statute providing for
payment of such impost notwithstanding the
nomenclature of the impost as given by the statute,
to find whether it is compensatory or penal in
nature. On the facts therein held that it was
compensatory and allowed the appeal preferred by the
assessee.
. Revenue preferred an appeal before the I.T.A.T.
I.T.A.T. considering the Circular No. 772 dated
23.12.1998 issued by C.B.D.T. and noted that only
those claims will be disallowed in respect of
payments on account of protection money, extortion,
hafta, bribes etc. as business expenditure. In
other words, the payments made basically in the
nature of "immoral payments". As noted earlier, the
payments for obtaining N.A. certificate are under
the D.C.Regulations and are compensatory.
Considering the above, the question as raised does
not raise any question of law. This is purely a
finding of fact. Consequently, the sae does not
raise any question of law. Hence, appeal dismissed.
(K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)
(K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.