https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253518 An ad hoc 50% disallowance of land development expenses was not justified in section 153A proceedings where the claim was recorded in the books and no specific defect, bill-wise objection, or item-wise discrepancy was shown; the expenditure was deleted. An alleged unexplained investment in a residential plot could not be substituted with DLC value merely on that basis, but the addition was sustained because the source of investment was not explained. Cash payments for purchase of agricultural land were held outside the mischief of section 40A(3) on the facts, so the disallowance was deleted. Telescoping relief was allowed to the extent a nexus existed, while interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C was treated as mandatory. en-us Fri, 20 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Nov 2014 18:11:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253518 An ad hoc 50% disallowance of land development expenses was not justified in section 153A proceedings where the claim was recorded in the books and no specific defect, bill-wise objection, or item-wise discrepancy was shown; the expenditure was deleted. An alleged unexplained investment in a residential plot could not be substituted with DLC value merely on that basis, but the addition was sustained because the source of investment was not explained. Cash payments for purchase of agricultural land were held outside the mischief of section 40A(3) on the facts, so the disallowance was deleted. Telescoping relief was allowed to the extent a nexus existed, while interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C was treated as mandatory. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 20 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253518