Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. B...

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.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan