https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264184 The court held in favor of the appellant, ruling that the rental income should be assessed under the head 'business' rather than 'house property' as claimed by the appellant. Additionally, the compensation paid by the appellant to tenants to obtain vacant possession and increase rental income was deemed an admissible revenue deduction for business purposes. The court emphasized that the payment was not for acquiring a new asset but for enhancing existing business activities, in line with the appellant's Memorandum of Association. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant. en-us Fri, 04 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 May 2016 11:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264184 The court held in favor of the appellant, ruling that the rental income should be assessed under the head 'business' rather than 'house property' as claimed by the appellant. Additionally, the compensation paid by the appellant to tenants to obtain vacant possession and increase rental income was deemed an admissible revenue deduction for business purposes. The court emphasized that the payment was not for acquiring a new asset but for enhancing existing business activities, in line with the appellant's Memorandum of Association. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 04 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264184