<?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>Estimated provision for airline spare-part repairs held allowable as accrued business expenditure; obsolescence claim rejected for the year.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100493</link>
    <description>Provision for repair of unserviceable spare parts in an airline business was treated as an allowable business expenditure rather than a mere contingent liability, because the Tribunal found the inventory and repair outgo to be part of the ordinary recurring business cycle and accepted estimation-based provisioning under Bharat Earth Movers and Chainrup Sampatram. The disallowance was deleted, subject to proper computation in accordance with law. The claim for provision for obsolescence of Bid &amp; Win inventory was rejected for the year under appeal, as the Department stated it had been accepted in the succeeding assessment year. Other disallowance grounds were not pressed before the CIT(A).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 08:07:31 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 08:07:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=905566" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Estimated provision for airline spare-part repairs held allowable as accrued business expenditure; obsolescence claim rejected for the year.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100493</link>
      <description>Provision for repair of unserviceable spare parts in an airline business was treated as an allowable business expenditure rather than a mere contingent liability, because the Tribunal found the inventory and repair outgo to be part of the ordinary recurring business cycle and accepted estimation-based provisioning under Bharat Earth Movers and Chainrup Sampatram. The disallowance was deleted, subject to proper computation in accordance with law. The claim for provision for obsolescence of Bid &amp; Win inventory was rejected for the year under appeal, as the Department stated it had been accepted in the succeeding assessment year. Other disallowance grounds were not pressed before the CIT(A).</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 08:07:31 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100493</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>