Condonation of Delay: directoral disputes and pending company proceedings can constitute reasonable cause, allowing a belated return to be treated as ...
Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 upheld; faceless assessments subject to revision when AO fails requisite enquiries, remitted for fresh asse...
Limited scope of processing under section 143(1): enhancement without show cause is unsustainable; remand for residency, taxation and TDS verification...
Undisclosed receipts were added to gross profit by the AO, but the assessee claimed corresponding expenditure. CIT(A) deleted the addition, terming it double assessment. The department did not rebut that the addition was double assessment or deny the corresponding expenditure. ITAT held that the AO could not brush aside the assessee's claim of corresponding expenditure, which was duly considered by CIT(A). The department's grounds did not dispute the correctness of the expenditure items. The addition was rejected accordingly.
Undisclosed receipts were added to gross profit by the AO, but the assessee claimed corresponding expenditure. CIT(A) deleted the addition, terming it double assessment. The department did not rebut that the addition was double assessment or deny the corresponding expenditure. ITAT held that the AO could not brush aside the assessee's claim of corresponding expenditure, which was duly considered by CIT(A). The department's grounds did not dispute the correctness of the expenditure items. The addition was rejected accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.