<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance applies only to expenditure actually claimed; work-in-progress items need adjustment, not current-year addition.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99548</link>
    <description>Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance applies only to expenditure actually claimed as a deduction in computing business income; where TDS-defaulted amounts remained capitalised in work-in-progress and were not charged to the profit and loss account, no current-year disallowance was warranted. Even under the percentage completion method, the decisive question was whether the expense had entered the year&#039;s computation, and the balance had to be adjusted in work-in-progress to avoid later deduction without compliance. The audit report could not override the actual accounting treatment. The Tribunal therefore upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s limited verification approach and dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2026 07:08:04 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 May 2026 07:08:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=900330" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance applies only to expenditure actually claimed; work-in-progress items need adjustment, not current-year addition.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99548</link>
      <description>Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance applies only to expenditure actually claimed as a deduction in computing business income; where TDS-defaulted amounts remained capitalised in work-in-progress and were not charged to the profit and loss account, no current-year disallowance was warranted. Even under the percentage completion method, the decisive question was whether the expense had entered the year&#039;s computation, and the balance had to be adjusted in work-in-progress to avoid later deduction without compliance. The audit report could not override the actual accounting treatment. The Tribunal therefore upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s limited verification approach and dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2026 07:08:04 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99548</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>