Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT Delhi addressed various issues in the case. Firstly, regarding addition u/s 68 due to a difference in Form 26AS and income in the return, CIT(A) deleted the addition as the amount was already accounted for in a previous assessment year, attributing the discrepancy to an error by M/s Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. The Tribunal upheld this decision based on reconciliation presented. Secondly, disallowance u/s 37 on salary/wages was challenged, but CIT(A) found evidence of proper payments to employees and deleted the addition. Lastly, disallowance u/s 14A was not warranted as no exempt income was earned by the assessee, following the precedent set in Cheminvest Limited case.
The ITAT Delhi addressed various issues in the case. Firstly, regarding addition u/s 68 due to a difference in Form 26AS and income in the return, CIT(A) deleted the addition as the amount was already accounted for in a previous assessment year, attributing the discrepancy to an error by M/s Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. The Tribunal upheld this decision based on reconciliation presented. Secondly, disallowance u/s 37 on salary/wages was challenged, but CIT(A) found evidence of proper payments to employees and deleted the addition. Lastly, disallowance u/s 14A was not warranted as no exempt income was earned by the assessee, following the precedent set in Cheminvest Limited case.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
