https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427933 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions in favor of the assessee on all grounds, including the deletion of disallowances related to forfeited security deposit, addition under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, differences in stock statements and supplier balances, unreflected purchases, discounts given to suppliers, non-reflected transactions in supplier books, and treating repairing expenditure as capital expenditure. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s orders and dismissed the Department's appeal. en-us Fri, 16 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Sep 2022 12:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427933 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions in favor of the assessee on all grounds, including the deletion of disallowances related to forfeited security deposit, addition under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, differences in stock statements and supplier balances, unreflected purchases, discounts given to suppliers, non-reflected transactions in supplier books, and treating repairing expenditure as capital expenditure. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s orders and dismissed the Department's appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 16 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427933