2010 (2) TMI 176

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for respondents Nos. 1 and 3. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by 1. K. L. MANJUNATH J. - The Revenue has come up in this appeal challenging the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in C. 0. No. 53/Ban g/1995 in I. T. A. No. 364/Ban g/95 dated October 13, 2003. 2. The facts leading to this case are hereunder: 3. The respondent-assessee filed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal who allowed the appeal in part allowing deduction of Rs. 50,000 as against Rs. 86,000. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 5. The only question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is, whether the payment made to local police and local rowdies can be an allowable expenditure as a business expenditure? 6. We have heard the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llowed by the Department. If the assessee had spent the money for the purpose of security, we would have to concur with the view of the Tribunal. However, in the instant case, the payment has been made to the police and rowdies to keep them away from the business premises which payment be held as illegal and such illegal payment cannot be an allowable deduction. 8. In the circumstances, we answ....