https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468015 Expenditure genuinely incurred for implementing a property development project, including tenant settlement, levelling, earth filling, temporary office costs, municipal payments and related incidental outgoings, was treated as allowable business expenditure even though not expressly recited in the development agreement. A disputed compensation amount was held not to have accrued as taxable income because the right to receive it had not attained finality and remained contingent pending litigation. Proportionate land cost was not permitted to be added to closing work-in-progress where it would inflate WIP without recoverable benefit. Payments for tenant settlement, electricity and society formation were also accepted as business expenditure, and the impugned additions and disallowances were deleted. en-us Wed, 10 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Apr 2026 16:10:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468015 Expenditure genuinely incurred for implementing a property development project, including tenant settlement, levelling, earth filling, temporary office costs, municipal payments and related incidental outgoings, was treated as allowable business expenditure even though not expressly recited in the development agreement. A disputed compensation amount was held not to have accrued as taxable income because the right to receive it had not attained finality and remained contingent pending litigation. Proportionate land cost was not permitted to be added to closing work-in-progress where it would inflate WIP without recoverable benefit. Payments for tenant settlement, electricity and society formation were also accepted as business expenditure, and the impugned additions and disallowances were deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 10 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468015