Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
The ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee on the following issues: 1. Addition u/s 68 for refund of advances received from different parties was deleted. The ITAT held that receiving refunds through banking channels from different parties than those to whom advances were given earlier cannot be the sole ground for addition u/s 68, especially when the assessee had provided complete details and confirmations from the parties. The AO should have conducted further investigation if doubts persisted. 2. Disallowance of depreciation on capital assets purchased from a party involved in accommodation entries was rejected. The ITAT accepted the assessee's contention that the assets were installed, commissioned, and put to use, and the AO should have conducted physical verification when requested instead of disallowing depreciation. 3. Consequently, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) related to the disallowed depreciation claim was also deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
TaxTMI 
