Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the amount paid by the assessee as penalty for supplying foodgrains below the prescribed F.A.Q. standard was an admissible deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
Analysis: The payment arose from the assessee's breach of contractual conditions entered into in pursuance of a statutory foodgrains control regime under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 and the Orissa Foodgrains Control Order, 1951. The decisive test was whether the sum was laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business and whether it could be treated as a commercial loss incidental to trading. A penalty imposed for transgression of statutory control or for conduct opposed to the public policy underlying such control is not an outgoing incurred for earning profits, even if it is connected with the business in a broad sense. The payment here was a punishment for supplying inferior goods in breach of the regulated scheme, not a reduction of sale price or a normal trading loss.
Conclusion: The amount of Rs. 25,700 paid by way of penalty was not an admissible deduction under section 10(2)(xv) and the answer to the reference was in the negative, against the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: A penalty paid for breach of law or of a statutory control regime is not deductible as business expenditure unless it is shown to be a commercial loss incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning business profits.