TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 663
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g out of the order dated 19.10.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) in ITA No.2578/AHD/2014 for the A.Y.2010-11: (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. ITAT has erred in treating land restoration expenses to the extent of Rs. 3,25,39,891/- as Revenue expenditure despite the same being capital expenditure in nature and not allowable? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Id. ITAT is justified in deleting the expenditures which were incurred by the assessee in relation to building given on rent and claimed the same as deduction by debiting P&L account despite that the assessee has also claimed standard deduction u/s 24 of the Act there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llowing earlier years ITAT's Order for A.Y. 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10, deleted the additions on account of land restoration expenditure considering the complete project wise particulars of land, restored expenses incurred vis-a-vis corresponding income which has been shown in the profit and loss account relating to the said expenses to that particular project which also shows the income booked on account of land restoration in the year under consideration which is also inclusive in the sales account of that year. 6. The Revenue being aggrieved preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal following the earlier years order for A.Y.2009-10 in ITA No.1871/AHD/2012 dismissed the ground raised by the Revenue. 7. Learned Senior Stand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 24, when the rent income is already taxed under the head income from house property and therefore no substantial question of law arises on that count. 13. With regard to question no.(c) of deleting disallowance of stamp duty, the Assessing Officer disallowed the stamp duty of Rs. 20,96,388/- after considering the explanation of the assessee without analyzing or distinguishing the same from such disallowance which was made earlier and later on deleted by the CIT(Appeal) and the Tribunal as under: "10.4. The contention of the assessee has been carefully considered and found not to be acceptable because it is a non-allowable expense. Similar addition was made in the preceding years, therefore, following consistent view addition is mad....