https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396633 The tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263, affirming the need for further verification on the applicability of Section 50C and the cost of acquisition/improvement. The appellant's claim for double deduction of interest expenses was rejected, referencing legal precedent. However, the tribunal allowed the claim for repairs and maintenance expenses to be re-examined, requiring proper documentation. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, underscoring the necessity for comprehensive verification and compliance with legal provisions. en-us Tue, 09 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Nov 2024 11:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396633 The tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263, affirming the need for further verification on the applicability of Section 50C and the cost of acquisition/improvement. The appellant's claim for double deduction of interest expenses was rejected, referencing legal precedent. However, the tribunal allowed the claim for repairs and maintenance expenses to be re-examined, requiring proper documentation. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, underscoring the necessity for comprehensive verification and compliance with legal provisions. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 09 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396633