https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465456 Provision for productivity-linked reward was disallowed as ad hoc/contingent; the Tribunal held it was an ascertained liability within the Government-prescribed 5% limit and approved by the board, and that being under review did not render it unascertained, following HC precedent; the disallowance was deleted. Legal expenses were treated as prior-period; the Tribunal held the guarantor liability arose in the course of business and crystallized when the board approved settlement and when the judgment was delivered during the relevant year; the deduction was allowed. Provision for post-retirement benefits, based on actuarial valuation, was held allowable as an ascertained liability per SC law; the revenue's challenge failed. ROC fee and stamp duty for increase in authorised capital were held deductible following SC precedent; the revenue's ground was rejected. en-us Tue, 10 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Dec 2025 19:20:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465456 Provision for productivity-linked reward was disallowed as ad hoc/contingent; the Tribunal held it was an ascertained liability within the Government-prescribed 5% limit and approved by the board, and that being under review did not render it unascertained, following HC precedent; the disallowance was deleted. Legal expenses were treated as prior-period; the Tribunal held the guarantor liability arose in the course of business and crystallized when the board approved settlement and when the judgment was delivered during the relevant year; the deduction was allowed. Provision for post-retirement benefits, based on actuarial valuation, was held allowable as an ascertained liability per SC law; the revenue's challenge failed. ROC fee and stamp duty for increase in authorised capital were held deductible following SC precedent; the revenue's ground was rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 10 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465456