https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344245 Surplus on sale of land was treated as capital gains where the land was held as an investment asset, and exemption under section 54EC was available on the facts found. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable because the income-classification dispute was bona fide and the expense disallowance was only estimated, without concealment or inaccurate particulars. Revision under section 263 was rejected because the Assessing Officer had taken one of two permissible views on a debatable issue. Deduction under section 80IB(10) was allowed for the completed residential project despite an unfinished separate commercial block, and the consequential disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) did not survive. en-us Wed, 31 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Jun 2017 06:34:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344245 Surplus on sale of land was treated as capital gains where the land was held as an investment asset, and exemption under section 54EC was available on the facts found. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable because the income-classification dispute was bona fide and the expense disallowance was only estimated, without concealment or inaccurate particulars. Revision under section 263 was rejected because the Assessing Officer had taken one of two permissible views on a debatable issue. Deduction under section 80IB(10) was allowed for the completed residential project despite an unfinished separate commercial block, and the consequential disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) did not survive. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 31 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344245