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.
ITAT upheld the order of the ld. CIT(A) in material respects. Additions u/s 68 on account of sundry creditors were rejected, as identity, creditworthiness and genuineness were established through confirmations and statements, and the AO had proceeded merely on suspicion without summoning most creditors. In respect of unsecured loans, ITAT confirmed the sustained addition of Rs. 18,00,000/- relating to three depositors, as the assessee did not press her appeal; deletions for the remaining amounts were upheld. For expenses incurred in vacating encroachers, ITAT affirmed the ld. CIT(A)'s partial allowance by estimating payment at Rs. 2,500 per square yard and directing recomputation of cost of acquisition. Development expenses were allowed as per ld. CIT(A), the AO's reliance on an Inspector's belated and non-technical report being rejected. Revenue's grounds were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.