Allu Arvind Babu (No. 2) v. ACIT (NO. 2) (2021) 430 ITR 183 / 197 DTR 93/318 CTR 102 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Real estate business-Provision made in account for security deposit-Amount forfeited due to breach of contract-Neither allowable as business expenditure nor as bad debt. [S. 36(1)(vii)]

Dismissing the appeal the Court held that, the creation of provision for expenditure which is not yet incurred and is only intended to be written off as compensation paid to the land owner for the admitted failure of the assessee to complete the contract in the manner as agreed between the parties, did not entitle the assessee to claim the sum either as bad debt or as business expenditure merely by making a book entry creating a provision for future expenditure or compensation, the assessee could not be permitted to claim deduction under section 36 or 37 of the Act. (AY.2006-07)