{"id":62754,"date":"2026-07-30T10:19:31","date_gmt":"2026-07-30T04:49:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/avtec-ltd-v-asst-cit-2024-168-taxmann-com-692-2025-129-itr-483-delhitrib-3\/"},"modified":"2026-07-30T10:19:31","modified_gmt":"2026-07-30T04:49:31","slug":"avtec-ltd-v-asst-cit-2024-168-taxmann-com-692-2025-129-itr-483-delhitrib-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/avtec-ltd-v-asst-cit-2024-168-taxmann-com-692-2025-129-itr-483-delhitrib-3\/","title":{"rendered":"AVTEC Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2024] 168 taxmann.com 692 \/ (2025) 129 ITR 483 (Delhi)(Trib.)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"margin: 0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height: 150%\"><span lang=\"EN-IN\" style=\"font-family: &#039;Verdana&#039;,sans-serif\">The Assessing Officer disallowed a part of the foreign travel expenses incurred by the directors on the ground that no business benefit had been established. The Tribunal held that the visits were undertaken to the assessee&#8217;s overseas subsidiaries engaged in marketing its products and were dictated by commercial expediency. The expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business and was allowable. The assessee claimed deduction of excise duty paid on raw materials used in the manufacture of goods which was not refunded when the finished goods were returned by customers. The Tribunal held that the expenditure had been incurred wholly for the purposes of the business and was allowable as a business deduction under section 37(1). The Assessing Officer disallowed gift expenses and part of the gardening expenses on the ground that they were not incurred wholly for business purposes. The Tribunal held that the genuineness of the expenditure was not in dispute and that the expenses had been incurred for the purposes of the business. The disallowance was, therefore, deleted. The assessee claimed deduction of prior period expenditure towards miscellaneous expenses, repairs and maintenance, and legal and professional charges. The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish that the liability had crystallised during the relevant previous year. Mere approval of expenditure during the current year for work completed and accounted for in an earlier year did not determine the year of crystallisation. Accordingly, the disallowance was upheld. <strong><span style=\"font-family: &#039;Verdana&#039;,sans-serif\">(AY. 2011-12 to 2016-17).<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Foreign travel expenses-Directors&#8217; visit to overseas subsidiaries for promotion of business-Commercial expediency-Allowable-Irrecoverable excise duty on sales returns-Expenditure incurred for business purposes-Allowable-Gift and gardening expenses-Expenditure incurred for business purposes-Allowable-Prior period expenses-Assessee unable to establish crystallisation of liability during relevant year-Disallowance upheld.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-62754","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-gka","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62754","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=62754"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62754\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":62755,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62754\/revisions\/62755"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=62754"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=62754"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=62754"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}