https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219647 The High Court remitted the matter back to the AO for reconsideration. The AO again denied the claim, stating the expenditure is revenue in nature and should be allowed in the year it is incurred. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's order, leading to a second appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, permitting the deduction for prior period expenditure on power lines, considering the change in accounting method and the genuine reasons behind it. The judgment emphasized the necessity of considering the liability crystallization during the relevant period for allowing such expenditure claims. en-us Wed, 04 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219647 The High Court remitted the matter back to the AO for reconsideration. The AO again denied the claim, stating the expenditure is revenue in nature and should be allowed in the year it is incurred. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's order, leading to a second appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, permitting the deduction for prior period expenditure on power lines, considering the change in accounting method and the genuine reasons behind it. The judgment emphasized the necessity of considering the liability crystallization during the relevant period for allowing such expenditure claims. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 04 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219647