Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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.