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 penalty paid under the Sea Customs Act and the related loss could be taken into account under section 10(1) or allowed as a deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
Analysis: The disputed payment arose from an isolated import transaction found by the Tribunal not to have been undertaken in good faith. A deduction under section 10(2)(xv) requires expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, and a claim under section 10(1) must represent a loss which springs directly from the business and is incidental to it. A penalty incurred for breach of law is not a commercial loss and is not a normal incident of carrying on trade. The Court applied the governing principle that amounts paid because the assessee has rendered itself liable to penalty for infraction of law do not qualify as business losses or business expenditure.
Conclusion: The penalty and resulting loss were not allowable either under section 10(1) or under section 10(2)(xv); the answer was against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
Ratio Decidendi: A penalty imposed for contravention of law is not a commercial loss or allowable business expenditure unless it is shown to be an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of carrying on the business.