2014 (4) TMI 712

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rchasing the land - there was no reason why the addition was made by the assessee – but, the cross objection filed by the assessee was wrongly allowed by the Tribunal on the ground that no expenditure had really been claimed with respect to the amounts disallowed by the AO - When an expenditure of a revenue nature was incurred and shown as work in progress, it could not be said that the provisions .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the CIT, it appears that he had deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the expenditure incurred by the assessee in purchasing land was not shown as a business expenditure. There was, as such no reason to disallow the same. The assessee had, in fact, also indicated that the amount spent in purchasing the land was shown as the amount involved in work in progress. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Assessing Officer. When an expenditure of a revenue nature was incurred and shown as work in progress, it could not be said that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) were not attracted. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the appeal preferred by the revenue was correctly dismissed but the cross objection preferred by the assessee could not have bee .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X