The assessee had made provision of ‘periodic overlay expenses’ towards the pavement of the toll road. As per its arrangement with NHDP, the assessee had to relay the surface every five years. Hence, the assessee claimed the expenses as an ascertained liability and not a contingent liability. The Assessing officer disallowed the provision while determining the income under the regular provisions, holding that the basis of estimation of such cost of overlay expenses is not scientific and is thus contingent liability. The Tribunal held that contingent liabilities are liabilities that may be incurred by an entity depending on the outcome of an uncertain future event, such as a pending lawsuit. These liabilities are not recorded in the company’s accounts and are shown below the line in the balance sheet as a footnote. In the instant case, a provision has been made to cover expenses that will have to be incurred in future. If the amount towards the expenditure can be reasonable, as done by the assessee by submitting reports from a third party, it could not be claimed that the expenses cannot be ascertained. Therefore, we find that there is no dispute that such provision towards the cost of overlay expenses is related to the business activity of operating and maintaining the highway. Any Addition made towards such provision would enhance the taxable profit, which is eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(i) of the Act and would thus be a revenue-neutral exercise. The CBDT in Circular No 37 of 2016 has stated that the appeal and ground were so taken should not be pressed/withdrawn if the decision leads to a neutral tax issue.  (AY. 2010-11)