https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69881 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)'s decision to add Rs. 16,16,000 to the assessee's income for the assessment year 1992-93. The Tribunal found that the delay in recognizing brokerage income was not a deliberate attempt to defer tax payment, as claimed by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A). The income was correctly accounted for in the subsequent year, following cash basis accounting for security transactions. The Tribunal concluded that there was no evidence to support the suspicion of deliberate income deferral, leading to the deletion of the addition from the assessment year in question. en-us Wed, 17 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69881 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)'s decision to add Rs. 16,16,000 to the assessee's income for the assessment year 1992-93. The Tribunal found that the delay in recognizing brokerage income was not a deliberate attempt to defer tax payment, as claimed by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A). The income was correctly accounted for in the subsequent year, following cash basis accounting for security transactions. The Tribunal concluded that there was no evidence to support the suspicion of deliberate income deferral, leading to the deletion of the addition from the assessment year in question. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 17 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69881