https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400989 The Tribunal found in favor of the assessee, concluding that the authorities erred in disallowing the deduction towards the cost of interest capitalized to the asset. The AO's rejection lacked justification, especially when similar claims were allowed in prior years. The Tribunal emphasized the need for consistency and criticized the CIT(A) for incorrect assumptions. It was established that a nexus existed between the borrowed funds and the acquisition of the property. The appeal was allowed, directing the AO to permit capitalization of interest related to repaying loans from directors and relatives. en-us Thu, 19 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Nov 2020 12:35:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400989 The Tribunal found in favor of the assessee, concluding that the authorities erred in disallowing the deduction towards the cost of interest capitalized to the asset. The AO's rejection lacked justification, especially when similar claims were allowed in prior years. The Tribunal emphasized the need for consistency and criticized the CIT(A) for incorrect assumptions. It was established that a nexus existed between the borrowed funds and the acquisition of the property. The appeal was allowed, directing the AO to permit capitalization of interest related to repaying loans from directors and relatives. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 19 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400989