https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335350 The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the set off of total interest expenditure as "prior period" expenses for a subsequent assessment year. The Court held that the exclusion of interest and legal charges in previous years was a precautionary measure and consistent with other group cases. It emphasized that if the transaction had matured, the interest component could have been included in the cost of land, so the interest paid should be permitted as prior period expenditure. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the Court upheld the decision of the ITAT and CIT(A). en-us Wed, 16 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Apr 2017 14:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335350 The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the set off of total interest expenditure as "prior period" expenses for a subsequent assessment year. The Court held that the exclusion of interest and legal charges in previous years was a precautionary measure and consistent with other group cases. It emphasized that if the transaction had matured, the interest component could have been included in the cost of land, so the interest paid should be permitted as prior period expenditure. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the Court upheld the decision of the ITAT and CIT(A). Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 16 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335350