https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329036 The court allowed the petition, setting aside the notice for re-opening assessment for AY 2010-11. It held that the excess payment made by the petitioner to cane suppliers was considered as distribution of profit/application of income and could not be allowed as a business expenditure under Section 37 of the IT Act. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to commercial accounting principles and the real income theory, referencing past judgments to support its decision. en-us Tue, 14 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Jun 2016 11:32:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329036 The court allowed the petition, setting aside the notice for re-opening assessment for AY 2010-11. It held that the excess payment made by the petitioner to cane suppliers was considered as distribution of profit/application of income and could not be allowed as a business expenditure under Section 37 of the IT Act. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to commercial accounting principles and the real income theory, referencing past judgments to support its decision. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 14 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329036