Business expenditure disallowance failed where commission, related-party salary and promotion payments were supported by records and inquiry was inade...
Additions under section 69A for alleged clandestine sales and unexplained investment failed because the underlying charge of clandestine removal was not sustained in excise proceedings. The ITAT noted that, for another year on the same factual basis, the appellate authority had already deleted similar additions after the CESTAT found the excise allegation unsustainable. Once the allegation of unaccounted sales did not survive, the additions based solely on that premise had no independent evidentiary footing and could not be maintained. The appeal was therefore allowed and the additions deleted.
Additions under section 69A for alleged clandestine sales and unexplained investment failed because the underlying charge of clandestine removal was not sustained in excise proceedings. The ITAT noted that, for another year on the same factual basis, the appellate authority had already deleted similar additions after the CESTAT found the excise allegation unsustainable. Once the allegation of unaccounted sales did not survive, the additions based solely on that premise had no independent evidentiary footing and could not be maintained. The appeal was therefore allowed and the additions deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
