2018 (8) TMI 715

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Sr. Standing Counsel. O R D E R The assessee/appellant's grievance in this appeal proceeding under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as the Act) is that the ITAT fell into error in not allowing the expenditure claimed under Section 37 of the Act. The assessee had claimed Rs. 39,01,750/- as litigation/settlement expenses. The facts are that the appellant was managing director of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ly and exclusively laid out for the purposes of business under Section 37 of the Act. The ITAT also took note of the judgment of this Court in Shanti Bhushan v. Commissioner of Income Tax 336 ITR 26. It is urged on behalf of the assessee that if the litigation expenses claimed under Section 37 of the Act were not paid it would have been impossible for him to carry on his profession as an advocate .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssible. The kind of expenditure which a legal professional can legitimately and justly claim is entirely different from the basic expenditure which a commercial entity can claim. Moreover, the commonality sought to be urged, i.e. the persona of the assessee that obscures the fact is that the hat donned by the assessee in the past was of a business entrepreneur whereas he is now a legal profession .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X