https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360068 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, recognizing the encashment of the bank guarantee as compensatory in nature and thus allowable as a business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. It held that the loss incurred was revenue expenditure, crystallized during the assessment year 2009-10. The Tribunal rejected the contention that the liability was contingent due to pending arbitration proceedings, affirming that the liability had already crystallized. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the claim of Rs. 2,08,92,603/- as a business expenditure. en-us Mon, 07 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 May 2018 08:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360068 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, recognizing the encashment of the bank guarantee as compensatory in nature and thus allowable as a business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. It held that the loss incurred was revenue expenditure, crystallized during the assessment year 2009-10. The Tribunal rejected the contention that the liability was contingent due to pending arbitration proceedings, affirming that the liability had already crystallized. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the claim of Rs. 2,08,92,603/- as a business expenditure. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 07 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360068