https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330484 Delay of 285 days in filing the cross objection was condoned because the explanation showed bona fide conduct, absence of mala fides, and that substantial justice should prevail over technical objections. The cross objection remained maintainable under section 253(4) read with Rule 22 despite dismissal of the Revenue's appeal, since a cross objection has the character of an appeal and is not extinguished by the fate of the original appeal. On the deduction issue, expenditure incurred after the date of setting up of the business had to be examined afresh, because the earlier directions were not properly applied and the factual basis required reconsideration by the Assessing Officer. en-us Wed, 15 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Jul 2016 14:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330484 Delay of 285 days in filing the cross objection was condoned because the explanation showed bona fide conduct, absence of mala fides, and that substantial justice should prevail over technical objections. The cross objection remained maintainable under section 253(4) read with Rule 22 despite dismissal of the Revenue's appeal, since a cross objection has the character of an appeal and is not extinguished by the fate of the original appeal. On the deduction issue, expenditure incurred after the date of setting up of the business had to be examined afresh, because the earlier directions were not properly applied and the factual basis required reconsideration by the Assessing Officer. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 15 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330484