Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The Appellate Tribunal considered the disallowance of advance written off as an expense u/s 36(2). The Assessing Officer argued it should be allowable u/s 37 due to a direct nexus with the assessee's business. The issue was whether the amount given up represented a loss of capital or revenue expenditure. Citing CIT vs. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd, the Tribunal held that as there was no capital investment in the advances, the loss was on the revenue side and deductible. Referring to Appollo Tyres Ltd, it was established that business advances for revenue items are allowable u/s 37. As the amount was given in the course of business, it was allowed to be written off u/s 37. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Appellate Tribunal considered the disallowance of advance written off as an expense u/s 36(2). The Assessing Officer argued it should be allowable u/s 37 due to a direct nexus with the assessee's business. The issue was whether the amount given up represented a loss of capital or revenue expenditure. Citing CIT vs. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd, the Tribunal held that as there was no capital investment in the advances, the loss was on the revenue side and deductible. Referring to Appollo Tyres Ltd, it was established that business advances for revenue items are allowable u/s 37. As the amount was given in the course of business, it was allowed to be written off u/s 37. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
