https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329334 The High Court ruled against the revenue on the deletion of disallowances under Section 30(1) and upheld the Tribunal's decision that the expenditure on repair and renovation was revenue in nature. It also upheld the deletion of 50% of the disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) and the deletion of Rs. 7,26,477/- disallowed under Section 36(1)(iii). The issue of disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 was remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration based on established legal principles. en-us Wed, 16 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329334 The High Court ruled against the revenue on the deletion of disallowances under Section 30(1) and upheld the Tribunal's decision that the expenditure on repair and renovation was revenue in nature. It also upheld the deletion of 50% of the disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) and the deletion of Rs. 7,26,477/- disallowed under Section 36(1)(iii). The issue of disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 was remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration based on established legal principles. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 16 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329334