https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188508 The appeal before the ITAT Ahmedabad involved a delay in filing the appeal, which was condoned. Various additions and disallowances were contested for the assessment year 2005-2006. The addition under Section 40(a)(ia) was dismissed as the assessee did not press the ground. The addition under Section 40A(2)(b) was directed for re-examination due to lack of opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The addition under Section 28 was to be reconsidered with a fair opportunity for the assessee. The addition under Section 68 was to be re-evaluated with the issuance of summons to creditors. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was canceled due to the set-aside addition under Section 68. The Tribunal partially allowed one appeal and fully allowed another, directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine certain issues. en-us Fri, 02 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Dec 2016 13:01:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188508 The appeal before the ITAT Ahmedabad involved a delay in filing the appeal, which was condoned. Various additions and disallowances were contested for the assessment year 2005-2006. The addition under Section 40(a)(ia) was dismissed as the assessee did not press the ground. The addition under Section 40A(2)(b) was directed for re-examination due to lack of opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The addition under Section 28 was to be reconsidered with a fair opportunity for the assessee. The addition under Section 68 was to be re-evaluated with the issuance of summons to creditors. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was canceled due to the set-aside addition under Section 68. The Tribunal partially allowed one appeal and fully allowed another, directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine certain issues. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 02 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188508