TMI Blog1994 (11) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... December 31, 1980. The assessee had imported certain components in relation to which the customs authorities levied duty in the first instance by loading the invoice value by 20 per cent. The assessee disputed the consequent demand, but paid the additional duty under protest. The Collector of Customs later passed another order by which he enhanced the invoice value by loading it at 100 per cent. f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, liable to be allowed as business expenditure though no provision had been made in the accounts. He did not also accept the contention of the Income-tax Officer of the neutralising effect of the allowance. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal and the Tribunal affirmed the order of the Commissioner relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal. The position at the end of the accounting period was that the liability was there, though disputed. It was accordingly that the assessee claimed deduction of this amount. No doubt, it had not made any provision in its accounts and the liability was also being disputed. But as held by the Supreme Court in Kedarnath's case [1971] 82 ITR 363, mentioned earlier, the fact that no provision is mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This amount was clearly allowable as a deduction and was rightly allowed by the Tribunal. So far as the other question regarding the neutralising effect of the allowance is concerned, we do not find any substance in it. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that this finding of the Income-tax Officer was absolutely baseless. We do not, therefore, find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
