https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766529 In a BOT highway project, amounts reflecting construction cost and work-in-progress were treated as capitalised entries rather than accrued income, so an estimated 8% profit addition on gross receipts under the Income-tax Act was held unjustified. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was also found inapplicable because the relevant expenditure had been capitalised and no revenue deduction was claimed in the profit and loss account. For the same reason, disallowance under section 43B could not be made where the expenditure was carried to work-in-progress and not claimed as a deductible expense. The result was that the additions were deleted and the assessee's position was accepted. en-us Mon, 24 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Feb 2025 08:14:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766529 In a BOT highway project, amounts reflecting construction cost and work-in-progress were treated as capitalised entries rather than accrued income, so an estimated 8% profit addition on gross receipts under the Income-tax Act was held unjustified. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was also found inapplicable because the relevant expenditure had been capitalised and no revenue deduction was claimed in the profit and loss account. For the same reason, disallowance under section 43B could not be made where the expenditure was carried to work-in-progress and not claimed as a deductible expense. The result was that the additions were deleted and the assessee's position was accepted. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 24 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766529