https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57229 The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal, overturning the CIT(A)'s decision to permit the additional freight claim by the assessee. It was held that the penal freight incurred due to overloading was a contractual liability, not penal in nature, and thus allowable as a business expenditure. The Tribunal also ruled that the claim should be made in the year when the bills were raised, following the mercantile system of accounting. The judgment highlighted the importance of distinguishing between penal and contractual liabilities and the timing of claiming expenditures. en-us Mon, 16 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Dec 2010 10:41:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57229 The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal, overturning the CIT(A)'s decision to permit the additional freight claim by the assessee. It was held that the penal freight incurred due to overloading was a contractual liability, not penal in nature, and thus allowable as a business expenditure. The Tribunal also ruled that the claim should be made in the year when the bills were raised, following the mercantile system of accounting. The judgment highlighted the importance of distinguishing between penal and contractual liabilities and the timing of claiming expenditures. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 16 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57229