Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Disallowance under s.40A(2)(b) for purchases from a related concern was held unsustainable because the AO produced no comparables to show the price paid was excessive or unreasonable; since the assessee purchased at the same (discounted) price as the group concern, the disallowance was deleted. Addition for cash deposits during demonetization was partly sustained because the assessee failed to fully evidence accumulation of cash gifts, but considering status and reasonableness, 50% relief was upheld and the balance treated as unexplained. Disallowance of cost of improvement was deleted as expenditure and sources were supported by additional evidence, banking-channel payments, joint ownership funding, and confirmations, with no infirmity shown. - ITAT
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
