https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206938 Delhi HC decided multiple issues in favor of assessee except one procedural matter. Court held no substantial question of law arose regarding: (1) cancellation charges addition lacking material evidence from search; (2) project completion method being consistently accepted by department, making selective percentage completion method unjustified; (3) stamp duty and electrification charges not deductible when paid, hence surplus cannot be added as income. However, court ruled for revenue on additional evidence acceptance, finding ITAT erred in interpreting Rule 46A vis-`a-vis Section 250(4). Issue regarding advances genuineness remanded to CIT(A) for fresh decision complying with Rule 46A requirements. en-us Tue, 15 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Jun 2025 14:25:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206938 Delhi HC decided multiple issues in favor of assessee except one procedural matter. Court held no substantial question of law arose regarding: (1) cancellation charges addition lacking material evidence from search; (2) project completion method being consistently accepted by department, making selective percentage completion method unjustified; (3) stamp duty and electrification charges not deductible when paid, hence surplus cannot be added as income. However, court ruled for revenue on additional evidence acceptance, finding ITAT erred in interpreting Rule 46A vis-`a-vis Section 250(4). Issue regarding advances genuineness remanded to CIT(A) for fresh decision complying with Rule 46A requirements. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 15 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206938