https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250155 The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 4.95 crores on account of under-pricing of sales to a sister concern, emphasizing that the assessee sold iron ore at market rates and that market prices cannot replace actual transaction prices without evidence of sham transactions. Additionally, the tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) in treating afforestation expenses and contribution towards bridge construction as revenue expenditure, citing commercial expediency and business necessity. The tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming that the transactions and expenses were correctly treated by the assessee in accordance with legal provisions and judicial precedents. en-us Fri, 30 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 Jul 2014 18:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250155 The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 4.95 crores on account of under-pricing of sales to a sister concern, emphasizing that the assessee sold iron ore at market rates and that market prices cannot replace actual transaction prices without evidence of sham transactions. Additionally, the tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) in treating afforestation expenses and contribution towards bridge construction as revenue expenditure, citing commercial expediency and business necessity. The tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming that the transactions and expenses were correctly treated by the assessee in accordance with legal provisions and judicial precedents. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 30 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250155