<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (7) TMI 112 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774044</link>
    <description>ITAT Hyderabad upheld CIT(A)&#039;s decision allowing NHAI grant to be treated as shareholders&#039; fund rather than reducing asset cost for depreciation purposes, finding the grant was cash support for project viability, not direct cost contribution under section 43. The tribunal allowed assessee&#039;s provision for periodic maintenance expenses, agreeing that mercantile accounting requires proportionate annual charging rather than full expense recognition in the fifth year when repair work occurs. However, the tribunal dismissed assessee&#039;s appeal as time-barred due to 1271-day delay, finding no reasonable cause justified the inordinate delay despite assessee&#039;s participation in revenue&#039;s cross-appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2025 18:24:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=833077" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 112 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774044</link>
      <description>ITAT Hyderabad upheld CIT(A)&#039;s decision allowing NHAI grant to be treated as shareholders&#039; fund rather than reducing asset cost for depreciation purposes, finding the grant was cash support for project viability, not direct cost contribution under section 43. The tribunal allowed assessee&#039;s provision for periodic maintenance expenses, agreeing that mercantile accounting requires proportionate annual charging rather than full expense recognition in the fifth year when repair work occurs. However, the tribunal dismissed assessee&#039;s appeal as time-barred due to 1271-day delay, finding no reasonable cause justified the inordinate delay despite assessee&#039;s participation in revenue&#039;s cross-appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774044</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>