Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
The ITAT held that the CIT (A) erred in admitting additional evidence without following Rule 46A. Deletion of additions on forfeited amount and various expenses was justified. The Delhi High Court precedent supported treating forfeited advance as business expenditure. The CIT (A) deleted disallowance of various expenses due to lack of AO's remand report. The ITAT upheld the deletion of disallowance u/s 14A. The case was remanded to CIT (A) for compliance with Rule 46A and fresh decision on specified grounds.
The ITAT held that the CIT (A) erred in admitting additional evidence without following Rule 46A. Deletion of additions on forfeited amount and various expenses was justified. The Delhi High Court precedent supported treating forfeited advance as business expenditure. The CIT (A) deleted disallowance of various expenses due to lack of AO's remand report. The ITAT upheld the deletion of disallowance u/s 14A. The case was remanded to CIT (A) for compliance with Rule 46A and fresh decision on specified grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
