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 amounts paid under a statutory control order and a bond, in exercise of an option given by the scheme, were deductible as business expenditure under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or were in the nature of penalty or something akin to penalty for infraction of law or public policy.
Analysis: The relevant payments were not made as punishment for breach of law. Under the control order and the export scheme, the assessees were given an option either to comply with the prescribed production or export requirement or to make payment in lieu of the shortfall. The controlling test was the substance of the scheme and the nature of the payment. Where the law itself permits the assessee to adopt an alternative course and the payment is made in obedience to that scheme, the amount cannot be treated as penalty or as an amount akin to penalty. Such payment is incurred in the course of business and is laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes.
Conclusion: The payments were allowable as business expenditure under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and were not disallowable as penalty or as an amount akin to penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: A payment made under a statutory scheme in exercise of an option conferred by that scheme, and not by way of punishment for breach of law, is deductible as business expenditure if it is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business.