https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440287 The appeal was allowed, and the additions made by the Assessing Officer were directed to be deleted. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned as it was found to be beyond the control of the assessee. The rectification petition under section 154 was rejected as no apparent mistake was found in the assessment order. The addition of expenditure on fencing of the boundary wall was deleted as it was not considered capital expenditure. The disallowance of interest income deduction under section 80P(2)(d) was also deleted as the deduction was never claimed in the return of income. en-us Tue, 11 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Jul 2023 08:15:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440287 The appeal was allowed, and the additions made by the Assessing Officer were directed to be deleted. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned as it was found to be beyond the control of the assessee. The rectification petition under section 154 was rejected as no apparent mistake was found in the assessment order. The addition of expenditure on fencing of the boundary wall was deleted as it was not considered capital expenditure. The disallowance of interest income deduction under section 80P(2)(d) was also deleted as the deduction was never claimed in the return of income. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 11 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440287