9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Allowability of penalty paid under sections 8(2) and 17(3) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act as an expenditure in the computation of total income. Analysis: The case involved a reference under s. 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding the allowability of penalties paid by an assessee under sections 8(2) and 17(3) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act as an expenditure in the computation of total income. The assessee contended that the penalties were allowable expenditures, while the department disagreed. The Tribunal held in favor of the assessee, considering the penalties as akin to an extra payment of sales tax and not penalties for economic offenses or moral turpitude. The key question was whether the penalties could be considered allowable expenditures under s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The section allows expenditures laid out wholly and exclusively for the business, excluding capital expenditures or personal expenses. The Supreme Court precedent established that sales tax, cess, and interest on arrears of tax or cess were allowable expenditures as they were part of the liability to pay tax or cess. However, fines or penalties for breaches of the law committed in business were not considered allowable expenditures. In this case, penalties were imposed under sections 8(2) and 17(3) of the Sales Tax Act for breaches of provisions. The penalties were not automatic but discretionary, imposed upon the assessee personally. The Tribunal's distinction between technical violations and moral turpitude was deemed irrelevant in determining the expenditure's allowability. The penalties were not considered laid out wholly and exclusively for the business, following the principles set out in previous court decisions. The court referred to various legal precedents to support its decision that penalties for breaches of the law in conducting business cannot be claimed as deductible expenses. The burden of proving the necessary facts to claim an amount as an allowable expenditure lies with the assessee. Ultimately, the court answered the question in the negative, ruling against the assessee, and directed the parties to bear their own costs of the reference.
|
