https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341551 Where a sole manufacturing unit remained closed for a prolonged period and secured assets were in lenders' possession, expenditure was not allowable under section 37(1) because it was not shown to be incurred for an existing carrying-on business. On the same facts, depreciation under section 32(1) was also denied because the plant and machinery were not actually used and mere readiness for use or passive use could not substitute for real business use. Limited audit, ROC and similar statutory compliance expenses were treated differently and were sent back for verification of their exact nature and quantum before any allowance. en-us Mon, 10 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Aug 2017 10:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341551 Where a sole manufacturing unit remained closed for a prolonged period and secured assets were in lenders' possession, expenditure was not allowable under section 37(1) because it was not shown to be incurred for an existing carrying-on business. On the same facts, depreciation under section 32(1) was also denied because the plant and machinery were not actually used and mere readiness for use or passive use could not substitute for real business use. Limited audit, ROC and similar statutory compliance expenses were treated differently and were sent back for verification of their exact nature and quantum before any allowance. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 10 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341551