Stay abreast with the latest developments in the professional domain along with in-depth analysis through the monthly BCA Journal. Get access to an engaging library of researched publications from the BCAS stable.
Learn MoreBCAJ Brieficles are short-format, web-only articles on contemporary topics of professional importance that are open-for-all to read & share.
Explore BrieficlesExplore past issues of BCA Journal & indulge in a treasure trove of high-quality professional content across format of print, videos & learning events from the BCAS stable.
Learn MoreMonthly mouth-piece of BCAS, the BCA Journal is a leading publication that has been in continuous circulation for more than 53 years. Over the years the BCAJ has become synonymous with high-quality & authentic content across fields of finance, accounting, tax & regulatory matters. The BCAJ has wide circulation across India & commands huge respect amongst the Chartered Accountants` community.
Learn MoreFor queries, collaborations, and insights to forge, Drop a line, share thoughts, inquiries galore, At BCAJ, your messages, we eagerly explore.
Learn More58 Principal CIT vs. CEC SOMA CICI JV
[2023] 456 ITR 705 (Kar)
A.Ys.: 2011–12, 2012–13
Date of Order: 21st March, 2023
S. 37 of ITA 1961
Business expenditure — Accrued or contingent liability — Provision for future expenses based on turnover — Amount set apart to meet future liabilities — Expenses in-built in the contract — Provision not contingent — Allowable deduction.
The assessee entered into a contract with BMCRL to design, construct tunnels and do other civil works. The total projected future expenses (non-billable expenses) included the reconstruction of roads damaged while constructing tunnels and during the other construction activities undertaken by the assessee. The non-billable expenses were in-built in the contract and payment for them was made by the assessee and not BMRCL. For the A.Ys. 2011–12 and 2012–13, based on the turnover, the assessee made provision for expenses and claimed deduction. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim.
The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the assessee’s appeal on the grounds that the provision was not contingent in nature but based on the