https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773836 ITAT Ahmedabad upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances for material and plot development expenses, finding that common expenditure was borne by RNTC per development agreement, not the assessee. The assessee legitimately incurred expenses under supplementary agreement for individual plot development, earning net income of Rs. 46 lakhs. However, ITAT disallowed commission/brokerage expenses, ruling that since RNTC owned the land per development agreement, any commission for plot sales should be borne by RNTC, not the assessee. Revenue's appeal partially allowed. en-us Thu, 26 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Jun 2025 08:34:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773836 ITAT Ahmedabad upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances for material and plot development expenses, finding that common expenditure was borne by RNTC per development agreement, not the assessee. The assessee legitimately incurred expenses under supplementary agreement for individual plot development, earning net income of Rs. 46 lakhs. However, ITAT disallowed commission/brokerage expenses, ruling that since RNTC owned the land per development agreement, any commission for plot sales should be borne by RNTC, not the assessee. Revenue's appeal partially allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 26 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773836