https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784160 Where the dominant issue was the year of allowability of expenditure on Transferable Development Rights (TDR) treated as inventory cost, the ITAT held that the Revenue could not adopt mutually inconsistent stands by disallowing the claim as "prior period" in one AY and then rejecting it in the earlier AY as belonging to the later year; since incurrence and business nexus were undisputed, the AO was directed to allow the TDR cost in the relevant AY. On penalty under s. 270A for disallowance of keyman insurance premium, the ITAT held that absence of a recorded finding specifying whether the case involved under-reporting or misreporting, and the debatable nature of the disallowance, barred penalty; the penalty was deleted. On s. 36(1)(iii) interest disallowance, availability of sufficient interest-free funds rebutted diversion; the proportionate disallowance was deleted. en-us Thu, 04 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Dec 2025 09:29:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784160 Where the dominant issue was the year of allowability of expenditure on Transferable Development Rights (TDR) treated as inventory cost, the ITAT held that the Revenue could not adopt mutually inconsistent stands by disallowing the claim as "prior period" in one AY and then rejecting it in the earlier AY as belonging to the later year; since incurrence and business nexus were undisputed, the AO was directed to allow the TDR cost in the relevant AY. On penalty under s. 270A for disallowance of keyman insurance premium, the ITAT held that absence of a recorded finding specifying whether the case involved under-reporting or misreporting, and the debatable nature of the disallowance, barred penalty; the penalty was deleted. On s. 36(1)(iii) interest disallowance, availability of sufficient interest-free funds rebutted diversion; the proportionate disallowance was deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 04 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784160