Regularization fees for violation in construction form part of Construction & Depreciation allowable
Case Law Details
Case Name : Dr. K. Senthilnathan Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle XIV, Chennai (ITAT Chennai)
Appeal Number : IT Appeal NOS. 493 TO 495 (MDS.) of 2010
Date of Judgement/Order : 15/02/2012
Related Assessment Year : 2004-05 to 2006-07
Courts :
All ITAT ITAT Chennai
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored
ITAT CHENNAI, (THIRD MEMBER)
Dr. K. Senthilnathan
v.
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle XIV, Chennai
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
Dear sir,
Our client had paid regularisation fee before he started his contract of Building. The construction made by him is not in violation of any laws. But , the Assessing officer has disallowed regularisation fee paid by my client taking into account the case of Millenium Developers P ltd.(322 ITR 401). But the regularisation fee paid by our client is not at all in the nature of penalty.
Please suggest me whether the regularisation fee not in the nature of penalty can be allowed as a deduction under Income Tax Act, 1961.
Dear sir,
Our client had paid regularisation fee before he started his contract of Building. The construction made by him is not in violation of any laws. But , the Assessing officer has disallowed regularisation fee paid by my client taking into account the case of Millenium Developers P ltd.(322 ITR 401). But the regularisation fee paid by our client is not at all in the nature of penalty.
Please suggest me whether the regularisation fee not in the nature of penalty can be allowed as a deduction under Income Tax Act, 1961.
If yes, suggest any case law, if available.