https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239340 Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) could not rest on a presumptive reverse calculation from excess TDS provision without identifying any specific expenditure on which tax was not deducted or deposited, so the matter was remanded for verification. Differential depreciation was held allowable because the claim was properly quantified in the tax audit report, and the appellate authority could consider it despite the restriction on fresh claims before the Assessing Officer, subject to verification. Addition under section 69B for stock difference was deleted because the bank stock statement was shown to be inflated for credit purposes, the books were not defective, and no reliable evidence established undisclosed stock investment. en-us Fri, 12 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Nov 2013 07:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239340 Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) could not rest on a presumptive reverse calculation from excess TDS provision without identifying any specific expenditure on which tax was not deducted or deposited, so the matter was remanded for verification. Differential depreciation was held allowable because the claim was properly quantified in the tax audit report, and the appellate authority could consider it despite the restriction on fresh claims before the Assessing Officer, subject to verification. Addition under section 69B for stock difference was deleted because the bank stock statement was shown to be inflated for credit purposes, the books were not defective, and no reliable evidence established undisclosed stock investment. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 12 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239340