Ahmedabad ITAT invokes
Explanation 1 to Sec. 37(1), disallows cost of production of goods incurred by
assessee (manufacturer of pan masala) which were found to containing magnesium
carbonate, a known carcinogenic substance, in excess of permissible limits;
ITAT notes that in terms of a court order under the Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act, the goods had to be destroyed, thus holds that
expenditure for making this product was something "prohibited by
law"; Observes that "Pan masala is a controversial product and,
even when it is manufactured within the permissible legal norms, it is
considered to be responsible for oral cancer and other severe ill effects
on health. In the present case, the assessee has gone even further against
the public interests", thus holds expenditure on manufacturing such
products whether deliberately or inadvertently, cannot be allowed as deduction;
Rejects assessee’s contention that no penalty, etc. was imposed on it, observes
that "... as long as the expenditure is incurred for a
purpose which is prohibited by law, it is immaterial whether the said act
of the assessee constitutes an offence or not"; Further remarks
that "What is even more disturbing is the indifferent attitude
to the assessee to the possible damage their products could have caused,
and, without any remorse or regret in his conduct, claim business
deduction of expenses incurred ...":ITAT
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
CBDT issues second round of frequently asked questions in relation to Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024
This Tax Alert summarizes Circular No. 19/2024 dated 16 December 2024 (VSV 2- December Circular) issued by the Central Board of Direct Tax...
-
PCIT vs. The Executor of Estate of Late Smt. Manjula A. Shah (Bombay High Court) S. 50C Capital Gains: The valuation of the stamp autho...
-
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Supreme Court (SC) [1] on availability of CENVAT Credit on mobile towers and pre-fabrica...
-
IFRS and US GAAP - Similarities and Differences What is IFRS? And what is GAAP? The main difference between IFRS and US GAAP is that G...
-
Madras HC reverses ITAT's order, grants deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) to assessee (a society engaged in the business of banking and provi...
-
SC dismisses assessee-company’s SLP challenging Bombay HC order upholding re-assessment initiation (beyond 4 yrs period) based on a special...
-
SC dismisses Revenue’s SLP challenging Bombay HC order in case of assessee (belonging to Lodha group of companies engaged in real estate bu...
-
Claiming a foreign tax credit (FTC) in Australia allows companies to offset foreign taxes paid on income earned overseas against their Aust...
-
HC allows HDFC Bank’s writ petition, quashes AO’s order and subsequent reference to TPO alleging that certain related party transactions [p...
-
Delhi ITAT deletes Rs. 1558.57 cr. capital gains addition on Telenor India for AY 2014-15, holds that set off of non-refundable entry fee p...
-
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Bombay High Court (HC)1 on admissibility of input tax credit (ITC) w.r.t GST on advance p...
No comments:
Post a Comment