New 2025 Fourth Amendment tightens governance, executive roles and tech leadership for recognised stock exchanges, clearing corporations under 2018 Re...
ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal and set aside the reassessment and consequent disallowance. It held that reopening of assessment was invalid as the original assessment under section 143(3) had been completed after scrutiny and no fresh tangible material indicating suppression or omission by the assessee was found to justify "reasons to believe" escapement of income. On merits, ITAT held that late delivery (L.D.) charges were contractual payments for delayed supply of goods, not a penalty for infringement of law, and thus constituted allowable business expenditure under section 37. The disallowance of L.D. charges was therefore unsustainable.
ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal and set aside the reassessment and consequent disallowance. It held that reopening of assessment was invalid as the original assessment under section 143(3) had been completed after scrutiny and no fresh tangible material indicating suppression or omission by the assessee was found to justify "reasons to believe" escapement of income. On merits, ITAT held that late delivery (L.D.) charges were contractual payments for delayed supply of goods, not a penalty for infringement of law, and thus constituted allowable business expenditure under section 37. The disallowance of L.D. charges was therefore unsustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
