Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M N Swaminathan Since Dead By His Lrs on 16 February, 2010
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, B.V.Nagarathna
tzéy vsfi: SE81--1ACI"'{ALA. ADV.)
.NOSWAM:INAT}*lAN SINCE DEAD BY ms LRS
v~N£«:15:1;AO\/AT}-11 ANO ms
NEELAVA'1'HI
- 3AA O,
IN' THE 1-non COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 16"" DAY OF FEBRUARY. 2010'
PRESENT _ V
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTECE2 K.1,.MrxNJO:s§;A;_1fjH_ ' L.
AND '
"rm; HONBLE MRS. Jus'iiI.Oi; " n
1;'r.A.NO.290g'2.®_4,_ V
BETWEEN:
1.THE cOMM1s§3'iONER"O'F ::'NO'O:v1.E: ' c R BU1LO§_Nc;j;,g'UKENS ROAD ' V. ' BANGAi{_ORE__ 'V O INOOM :TA;><. IN3/E:s*r'1.g:AfriON"' CIRCLE 5 (,1 1.
{Q QUEEENS ROAD» _ ~ BANOA1,4OR_:+: "
. . . APPELLANTS W / O M N SWAMINATHAN AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/A. NO. 13. I CROSS DOD DAKA'l'APi3'A ROAD ULSOOR BANGAI,OREvO8
6. ii' any payment is made towards the security, towards the business oi' the assess. such amount is an allowab__l_e deduction, any amount spent for the maintenance ()i"fneaee and law and order in the business premises of i1i¢"asVs¢ssé<:-
as he was running two cinema iheai'..I'es.-_ But the"iamou1_Ti spent in the instant case claimed by the ass'essee-- is .1.()wa';9ds avrnent made to the Joliee and 'i"oy\rdies'. IE7 anv ";a"--n1ent P 'I 1 _ ._ 1 made to the police illegge1'll:'\4i_';':«--ii. such iiiegai gratification canno"t_.. V allowabie deduction and to a rowdy as a pfCC&1LEilOl1a€i'_y ii;--i1aatRhvel"sI1all not. cause any distL1rb21i:ihee"llln assessee, the same is also an aniziuiqt ».E:'o.i--~ which no deduction can be allowed 1,he~depaiin-1e.ni:j*"ll" the assessee had spent the 'V"inor1evi?_'i'oi: --.il1eV._ ui'Jose---oi'lsecL:1'il. , we would have to concur 'vsriih ihe \'>vi.ei'x»' _oifxil1e tribunal. liowever. in the instant case. thelpay111ei11i'ih:-sis been made to the police and rowdies to ' keep the.ri'1l'a\xr21y from the business 1)i'emises which paymeni beheld as illegal and such illegal payineiii. cannot be an _ 'wfilloivable. deduction.
7. in the eireu 1'}}SE'¢'1l'1C.CfS. we answer ihe question. of law in favoin' of the revenue and against the assessee. Ao(:to1'cli1'igly.
<3?' we set aside {he order passed by the Incrome--t.ax Appellate 'I':'ibunal dated 13.10.2003 passed in I.T.A.No.364/Ba1"1g/95 and {he order passed by 'zhe Assessing Officer and the Commissioraex' 01' InC():ne--ta1,x mppeais} aye 1*<:st.r:;';"t':'d-. :2. b S5'