Just a moment...
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 to the State Excise Authority was a penalty for infraction of law and therefore inadmissible under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or was an excise duty payment made in discharge of a business obligation and allowable as a deduction.
Analysis: The payment had to be judged by its true nature and not by the label used in the demand notice. The record showed that the assessee had undertaken to submit excise verification within the stipulated time and, on failure, to bear the extra excise duty leviable at the relevant rate. The authorities found that no statutory penalty had been levied under the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 or the Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956, and that the amount corresponded to excise duty calculated at the notified rate. Applying the settled principle that the character of an impost depends on the scheme of the governing law and whether it is compensatory or penal, the payment was held to be made in the ordinary course of business and not for a prohibited purpose.
Conclusion: The payment was not penal in nature and was allowable as a deduction under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; the disallowance was rightly deleted.
Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of section 37(1), the decisive test is the true character of the impost under the governing law and surrounding obligation, and a payment made as excise duty in discharge of a business obligation is deductible if it is compensatory and not a statutory penalty for breach of law.