https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346352 The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit by CBDT. The assessee's cross objection was partly allowed, with the Tribunal remanding the disallowance issue back to the Assessing Officer for further examination. The delay in filing the Cross Objection was condoned due to genuine reasons. The claim for deduction under section 80-IA(4)(iv)(a) was dismissed for lack of supporting evidence. The disallowance of expenditure claimed as capital expenditure for repairs was overturned, directing it to be treated as revenue expenditure. en-us Fri, 23 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Aug 2017 06:40:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346352 The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit by CBDT. The assessee's cross objection was partly allowed, with the Tribunal remanding the disallowance issue back to the Assessing Officer for further examination. The delay in filing the Cross Objection was condoned due to genuine reasons. The claim for deduction under section 80-IA(4)(iv)(a) was dismissed for lack of supporting evidence. The disallowance of expenditure claimed as capital expenditure for repairs was overturned, directing it to be treated as revenue expenditure. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 23 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346352