Business loss from confiscation in smuggling activity was held deductible under income-tax law.

Loss from confiscation of currency notes used in smuggling was treated as a business loss, not as an expenditure for an illegal purpose. The High Court reasoned that illegal activity can still constitute business for income-tax purposes, and that if profits from such activity are taxable, incidental losses must also be recognised. Distinguishing cases involving payments made to secure release of acquired goods, the court held that the confiscated amount arose in the course of the smuggling business and was therefore an allowable deduction under section 10(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.

---

---

Issues: Whether the loss arising from confiscation of currency notes carried in the course of a smuggling business was an allowable deduction under section 10(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.

Analysis: The currency notes were carried as part of the assessee's smuggling activity for acquiring gold abroad and for eventual profit-making in India. The decision distinguished cases where a penalty was paid to secure release of already-acquired goods, and treated the present loss as one arising in the course of business rather than as an expenditure for an illegal purpose. It was held that illegal business is still business for income-tax purposes, and that if profits from such business are taxable, losses incidental to it must also be taken into account. The confiscated amount was therefore regarded as a business loss connected with the smuggling activity.

Conclusion: The loss from confiscation was an allowable deduction under section 10(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and the question was answered in favour of the assessee.

---