<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2013 (6) TMI 622 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234797</link>
    <description>Amounts returned to allottee parties on cancellation of plot bookings were held to be revenue expenditure because they were advances received against proposed plot sales that never resulted in completed transfers. The payments, including interest, were made in the ordinary course of business and for commercial expediency, and their tax treatment depended on their real nature rather than the label of compensation. Earlier-year acceptance of similar claims supported this view, and there was no material to show that the sums represented a repurchase price of stock-in-trade. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was therefore deleted and the departmental challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Jun 2013 05:30:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=197207" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (6) TMI 622 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234797</link>
      <description>Amounts returned to allottee parties on cancellation of plot bookings were held to be revenue expenditure because they were advances received against proposed plot sales that never resulted in completed transfers. The payments, including interest, were made in the ordinary course of business and for commercial expediency, and their tax treatment depended on their real nature rather than the label of compensation. Earlier-year acceptance of similar claims supported this view, and there was no material to show that the sums represented a repurchase price of stock-in-trade. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was therefore deleted and the departmental challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234797</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>