TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upholds CIT(A)'s Decision on Disallowance of Punitive Charges</h1> <h3>DCIT, Circle-2 (1), Bhubaneswar Versus M/s Serajuddin & Co. (P) Ltd.</h3> DCIT, Circle-2 (1), Bhubaneswar Versus M/s Serajuddin & Co. (P) Ltd. - TMI Issues:- Disallowance of punitive charges under Section 37(1) of the ActAnalysis:The appeal was filed by the revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, concerning the disallowance of an amount paid as punitive charges by the assessee in the profit and loss account for the transport of excess material by the East Coast Railway. The ld. CIT-DR argued that the punitive charges were in violation of railway rules and therefore disallowed by the AO under Explanation 1 to Section 37 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A), however, relying on precedents, deleted the disallowance. The revenue contended that the charges were akin to fines and penalties, citing various legal judgments to support the disallowance.In response, the ld. AR referred to a Mumbai Bench Tribunal order, emphasizing that the charges were permissible under the Ministry of Railways notification and not in violation of any law. The Tribunal observed that the charges were overloading charges, not prohibited by law, and allowed the expenses. The Tribunal clarified the term 'prohibited by law' as explained by the Supreme Court, stating that punitive charges in this case were not related to any illegal activity or violation of law, thus justifying the deletion of the disallowance by the ld. CIT(A).The Tribunal distinguished the present case from legal precedents cited by the revenue, highlighting that those cases involved clear infractions of law, unlike the situation of overloading charges in the current appeal. The Tribunal concluded that the punitive charges were not in violation of any law, and therefore, the ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance was upheld. Consequently, the appeal of the revenue was dismissed, confirming the findings of the ld. CIT(A) on the issue of disallowance of punitive charges under Section 37(1) of the Act.
TaxTMI 