https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330403 Leasehold rights in land were treated as an interest in immovable property and not as intangible assets or similar business or commercial rights eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii), so the depreciation claim failed. The alternative claim that development cost of commercial space given to STPI was revenue expenditure was also rejected because the outlay related to acquisition of a capital interest in land. The section 14A read with rule 8D(2)(iii) disallowance was set aside because the record lacked a proper factual basis on expenditure incurred for exempt income, and the matter was remitted for fresh examination. en-us Thu, 30 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Jul 2016 10:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330403 Leasehold rights in land were treated as an interest in immovable property and not as intangible assets or similar business or commercial rights eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii), so the depreciation claim failed. The alternative claim that development cost of commercial space given to STPI was revenue expenditure was also rejected because the outlay related to acquisition of a capital interest in land. The section 14A read with rule 8D(2)(iii) disallowance was set aside because the record lacked a proper factual basis on expenditure incurred for exempt income, and the matter was remitted for fresh examination. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 30 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330403