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
- TDS 194-T applicability
- GST ITC REVERSE
- Fixe term employment
- Is any professional CA is here please reply
- RCM ISSUE ON RENT AND TRANSPORTATION CHARGES
- Putting a heading on received mail
- Reprocessing of rectification order AY 2025-26
- Consolidated financials
- Section 50-fixed asset-->building ceases to exist
- TDS on TRUST
- Regime change
- Goods sold but invoice not issued
- Tally: Imported bank entries do not show up in manual reconciliation
- Sales of goods of amount Rs97 lakhs to a party
- Confused About My Career After 12th — Cyber Security, AI or Finance? Need Guidance
- STATUTORY AUDIT OF A SMALL PRIVATE COMPANY INCORPORATED ON 28.03.2025
- Guidance Needed: Linking Multiple Form 26QB Payments and Responding to ITD Defaulter Notice
- How to pay remaining amount of TDS after due date?
- Resigning a auditor from the company for misconduct
- RCM @ 5% on Hamali charges, Transport Charges, Unloading charges we take ITC or not
Trending Online Classes
-
DT & Audit (Exam Oriented Fastrack Batch) - For May 26 Exams and onwards Full English
CA Bhanwar Borana & CA Shubham Keswani
Subscribe to Pro
Join an elite circle of professionals
CAclubindia
