Redemption Fine Paid for Goods Confiscated Due to Import Law Violations Is Not Allowable Expenditure

By | July 30, 2026

Redemption Fine Paid for Goods Confiscated Due to Import Law Violations Is Not Allowable Expenditure

Issue

Whether a redemption fine paid for releasing goods confiscated due to a breach of import conditions is an allowable business expenditure under Section 37(1).

Facts

  • Context: The matter pertains to Assessment Year 1988-89 involving the allowability of a redemption fine as a business deduction under Section 37(1).

  • Nature of Fine: The assessee imported goods that were subsequently ordered to be confiscated for breach of import conditions, requiring the payment of a redemption fine/penalty to release them.

  • Involvement of Assessee: Evidence established that the assessee was directly involved in making imports using the import license of “RB,” who was merely entitled to service charges.

  • Payment Source: The redemption fine was paid by the assessee directly, establishing that the assessee could not disassociate or divest himself from the irregularities or illegalities committed during the import process.

  • High Court Ruling: The High Court held that the redemption fine, levied for an infraction of the law committed by the assessee, is not an allowable business expenditure.

  • SLP Status: The assessee filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court challenging the decision.

Decision

  • The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the assessee as withdrawn, granting liberty as prayed for in the application.

  • The High Court’s ruling—disallowing the redemption fine as a business expenditure under Section 37(1)—remains intact. Decided in favor of the revenue.

Key Takeaways

  • Infraction of Law Not Deductible: Fines or penalties levied for the violation or breach of any statutory provision (including redemption fines for illegal imports) cannot be claimed as business expenses under Section 37(1).

  • Direct Involvement Establishes Liability: An importer using another entity’s license cannot disown liability for import violations or penalties paid when directly involved in the transaction.

  • Public Policy Limitation: Explanations to Section 37(1) prohibit tax relief or deductions for expenses incurred for any purpose that constitutes an offense or is prohibited by law.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sushil Gupta
v.
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-17
Surya Kant, CJ.
JOYMALYA BAGCHI and Mrs. V. Mohana, JJ.
SLP Appeal (C) Nos. 13587 & 13588 of 2022
JULY  14, 2026
Kunal Cheema, AOR and Raghav Deshpande, Adv. for the Petitioner. S. Dwarakanath, ASG, Alok KumarSushant Singh, Advs., Raj Bahadur Yadav and Sudarshan Lanba, AORs for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. Application (IA No.194078/2026) for withdrawal of petitions is allowed.
2. The Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for in the application.