Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4886 
