1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Tribunal Upholds Commissioner's Order in Income Tax Appeal for AY 2009-10</h1> The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in an appeal regarding assessment year 2009-10 under section 143(3) of the ... - Issues involved: Appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relating to assessment year 2009-10 under section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961.Issue 1: Allowance of appeal without appreciating the facts of the caseThe Revenue contended that the learned CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee without appreciating the facts of the case. The learned counsel for the assessee stated that the issue in the present appeal is identical to previous assessment years. The Tribunal had previously held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was not capital expenditure but rather expenses for carrying out normal farming activities. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT (Appeals) based on previous decisions, and dismissed the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue.Issue 2: Treatment of land development expenditureThe Revenue challenged the deletion of the addition of Rs. 80,90,000 being land development expenditure incurred by the assessee and treated as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer disallowed a portion of the expenditure as capital expenses incurred for developing the land. However, the Tribunal, based on previous rulings, allowed the claim of the assessee in its entirety. The Tribunal held that the expenses were for furthering business objectives and not of a capital nature. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT (Appeals) in both issues, and the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.