https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456881 The ITAT Hyderabad allowed the assessee's appeal against PCIT's revision order u/s 263. The PCIT contended that finance costs during pre-operative period should be capitalized entirely, not treated as allowable expenditure u/s 37. However, the AO had made proper enquiries and restricted disallowance to 30% under section 40(a)(ia). The ITAT held that since AO applied his mind after due examination and took one of the possible views, the assessment order was not erroneous. The revision u/s 263 was set aside as it did not meet the twin conditions of being both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. en-us Tue, 11 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Aug 2024 19:52:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456881 The ITAT Hyderabad allowed the assessee's appeal against PCIT's revision order u/s 263. The PCIT contended that finance costs during pre-operative period should be capitalized entirely, not treated as allowable expenditure u/s 37. However, the AO had made proper enquiries and restricted disallowance to 30% under section 40(a)(ia). The ITAT held that since AO applied his mind after due examination and took one of the possible views, the assessment order was not erroneous. The revision u/s 263 was set aside as it did not meet the twin conditions of being both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 11 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456881