Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
ITAT held that the alleged excess business loss arose from a clerical computation mismatch between book loss and loss computed under the Act, with no adverse scrutiny finding on the underlying claim, so the disallowance was deleted. It further accepted compensation paid to remove encroachment as a genuine cost of improvement for long-term capital gains computation, noting that the supporting agreements, payment records and verification material showed no serious discrepancy and the lower authorities had rejected the claim only on a general assertion of incomplete details. The indexed cost of improvement was therefore allowed and the appeal succeeded in full.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.