Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
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 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
