https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465741 Disallowance of land-development and allied expenses was tested against contemporaneous evidence of actual work and verifiable payments. The Tribunal held that demolition/leveling and site improvements were established by physical verification, purchaser's statement, contractor confirmations, cheque payments and TDS compliance; discrepancies in contractors' accounts could not, by themselves, negate the assessee's claim, and disallowance on estimate was impermissible where bills were available and not shown false. Consequently, the full development/road-laying expenses and compound wall/well/tank/pipe/electrification repair expenses were allowed, setting aside partial disallowances. Brokerage was allowed in full since payer, recipient and purchaser admitted payment and TDS was deducted; restriction to a "normal rate" lacked legal basis. Interest on partners' debit balances was held allowable under s.37(1) read with s.40(b), so the Revenue's challenge failed; Revenue appeal dismissed and assessee appeal allowed. en-us Thu, 16 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jan 2026 18:26:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465741 Disallowance of land-development and allied expenses was tested against contemporaneous evidence of actual work and verifiable payments. The Tribunal held that demolition/leveling and site improvements were established by physical verification, purchaser's statement, contractor confirmations, cheque payments and TDS compliance; discrepancies in contractors' accounts could not, by themselves, negate the assessee's claim, and disallowance on estimate was impermissible where bills were available and not shown false. Consequently, the full development/road-laying expenses and compound wall/well/tank/pipe/electrification repair expenses were allowed, setting aside partial disallowances. Brokerage was allowed in full since payer, recipient and purchaser admitted payment and TDS was deducted; restriction to a "normal rate" lacked legal basis. Interest on partners' debit balances was held allowable under s.37(1) read with s.40(b), so the Revenue's challenge failed; Revenue appeal dismissed and assessee appeal allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 16 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465741