Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
In the ITAT Delhi case, the Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on two key issues. Firstly, regarding unexplained cash deposits u/s 68, the AO's failure to consider cash balances and debtor realizations led to the addition being deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition. Secondly, on the disallowance of interest paid u/s 36(1)(iii), the Tribunal accepted the assessee's argument that interest on bank loans is a business expenditure, given the assessee's history of real estate and finance business activities. The disallowance made by the AO was deleted based on the Tribunal's decision for the assessment year 2009-10, affirming the assessee's real estate business activities.
In the ITAT Delhi case, the Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on two key issues. Firstly, regarding unexplained cash deposits u/s 68, the AO's failure to consider cash balances and debtor realizations led to the addition being deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition. Secondly, on the disallowance of interest paid u/s 36(1)(iii), the Tribunal accepted the assessee's argument that interest on bank loans is a business expenditure, given the assessee's history of real estate and finance business activities. The disallowance made by the AO was deleted based on the Tribunal's decision for the assessment year 2009-10, affirming the assessee's real estate business activities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
