https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207986 The Court held that the expenditure for removing encroachments was revenue in nature and should be deductible, overturning the Tribunal's decision. It emphasized the need for proof of actual payment to claim deductions, rejecting the requirement for agreements with encroachers. Proforma invoices were not treated as income for agencies that did not make actual payments, following the "real income" principle. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to reassess these issues and found the Tribunal's order not perverse but needing further examination. The appeals were disposed of with directions for deductions and reassessment, with no costs awarded. en-us Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207986 The Court held that the expenditure for removing encroachments was revenue in nature and should be deductible, overturning the Tribunal's decision. It emphasized the need for proof of actual payment to claim deductions, rejecting the requirement for agreements with encroachers. Proforma invoices were not treated as income for agencies that did not make actual payments, following the "real income" principle. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to reassess these issues and found the Tribunal's order not perverse but needing further examination. The appeals were disposed of with directions for deductions and reassessment, with no costs awarded. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207986