Allowability of exps u/s 37
This query is : Resolved
12 December 2011
CAN YOU PLS SITE SOME CASELAW ON ALLOWABILITY OF EXPENSE. IT MAY BE REFERRED BY AUTHORITY(PRINCIPALS) AS PENALTY BUT IS NOT SO LIKE NOT FOR VIOLATION OF LAW BUT FOR NON FULFILMENT OF CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS
12 December 2011
Hope the following case law , even though in different context may be helpful to you.
CIT V The Stock & Bond Trading Co (Bombay High Court)
Penalty/ Fine for violation of procedural law not hit by Explanation to s. 37(1)
The assessee paid penalty/fine to BSE/NSE for infringement of procedural rules such as failure to maintain margins,
trading beyond exposure limits,
late submission of margin certificates,
delay in making payment & deliveries etc.
The AO disallowed the claim for deduction on the ground that there was an infringement of statutory law laid down by SEBI and the Explanation to s. 37(1) was attracted.
This was reversed by the Tribunal on the ground that the penalty was for violation of procedural regulations and compensatory in nature and there was no infringement of law. On appeal by the department, HELD dismissing the appeal:
As the payments made by the assessee to the Stock Exchange for violation of their regulation was not an account of an offence or which is prohibited by law, the invocation of the Explanation to s. 37 of the Act was not justified.
CIT V The Stock & Bond Trading Co (Bombay High Court)
Penalty/ Fine for violation of procedural law not hit by Explanation to s. 37(1)
The assessee paid penalty/fine to BSE/NSE for infringement of procedural rules such as failure to maintain margins,
trading beyond exposure limits,
late submission of margin certificates,
delay in making payment & deliveries etc.
The AO disallowed the claim for deduction on the ground that there was an infringement of statutory law laid down by SEBI and the Explanation to s. 37(1) was attracted.
This was reversed by the Tribunal on the ground that the penalty was for violation of procedural regulations and compensatory in nature and there was no infringement of law. On appeal by the department, HELD dismissing the appeal:
As the payments made by the assessee to the Stock Exchange for violation of their regulation was not an account of an offence or which is prohibited by law, the invocation of the Explanation to s. 37 of the Act was not justified.
Message likes :
1 times
You need to be the querist or approved CAclub expert to take part in this query .
Click here to login now
Click here to login now
Similar Resolved Queries
Unanswered Queries
- House Property Reporting in ITR
- Internship/Academic shown in Salary Pay Slip of a Doctor
- TDS Claim year
- Liable to deduct tds and 44ADA
- TDS Challan Code
- Refund of 20%pre-deposit paid for stay application
- Rent lease agreement
- Nomination of Bank for refund in itr 2
- Section 56(2) of the Income tax Act 1961 , Gift to relative .
- SGST balance is there in credit ledger how to adjust for cgst
- GST Rate applicable for 0% Food Items sold by an Industrial Caterer
- Relief u/s Section 89
- SALE BILL AGAINST GOODS RETURN
- E Commerce GSTR1 & 3B how to file
- GST Cancellation without jurisdiction
- Legal Opinion on Registrar's Refusal to Investigate a Society for Non-Renewal and Non-Compliance
- GST Refund_RFD-01
- Form10BD was uploaded successfully without any Error but after 24 hours, Form10BE are not available
- Annexure B utility for GST Refund
- Tax amount diff in Gstr1 and 3B in tax compare reports
Trending Online Classes
-
DT & Audit (Exam Oriented Fastrack Batch) - For May 26 Exams and onwards Full English
CA Bhanwar Borana & CA Shubham Keswani
CAclubindia
