https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233925 The issue concerns whether the term payable in section 40(1)(ia) limits disallowance to amounts shown as payable on the balance-sheet or covers expenditures that became payable during the previous year and were paid within that year. The court held that payable is not restricted to outstanding items at yearend; payable and paid are distinct, and the provision applies to amounts becoming payable during the year even if subsequently paid, resulting in disallowance. The majority view in Merilyn Shipping was rejected for importing a casus omissus; the appeal was allowed in favour of the revenue. en-us Wed, 03 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Feb 2026 13:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233925 The issue concerns whether the term payable in section 40(1)(ia) limits disallowance to amounts shown as payable on the balance-sheet or covers expenditures that became payable during the previous year and were paid within that year. The court held that payable is not restricted to outstanding items at yearend; payable and paid are distinct, and the provision applies to amounts becoming payable during the year even if subsequently paid, resulting in disallowance. The majority view in Merilyn Shipping was rejected for importing a casus omissus; the appeal was allowed in favour of the revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 03 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233925