https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303861 Business expenditure incurred to lift a bank's financing ban on tractors was treated as allowable under section 37(1) because it was incurred on commercial expediency to protect sales and dealer support, and was not shown to be capital outlay or a penalty. A marginal difference between the assessee's declared building cost and the DVO's estimate was held too insignificant to justify an addition. A payment reflected as tax in the challan, with interest and penalty columns left blank, was not treated as penalty. A deduction claim under section 80G failed because no supporting certificate or reliable evidence was produced. en-us Wed, 11 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Aug 2022 10:34:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303861 Business expenditure incurred to lift a bank's financing ban on tractors was treated as allowable under section 37(1) because it was incurred on commercial expediency to protect sales and dealer support, and was not shown to be capital outlay or a penalty. A marginal difference between the assessee's declared building cost and the DVO's estimate was held too insignificant to justify an addition. A payment reflected as tax in the challan, with interest and penalty columns left blank, was not treated as penalty. A deduction claim under section 80G failed because no supporting certificate or reliable evidence was produced. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 11 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303861