https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382527 The Tribunal concluded that hoarding construction expenses were revenue in nature, not capital, as they facilitated business operations without acquiring any capital asset. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted. Regarding the disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, the Tribunal found the salary paid to the assessee's wife to be reasonable given her qualifications and responsibilities, deeming the disallowance of Rs. 50,000 arbitrary and deleting it. The appeal of the assessee was allowed with both additions being deleted. en-us Wed, 29 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Jul 2019 06:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382527 The Tribunal concluded that hoarding construction expenses were revenue in nature, not capital, as they facilitated business operations without acquiring any capital asset. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted. Regarding the disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, the Tribunal found the salary paid to the assessee's wife to be reasonable given her qualifications and responsibilities, deeming the disallowance of Rs. 50,000 arbitrary and deleting it. The appeal of the assessee was allowed with both additions being deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 29 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382527