https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428372 Where the factual foundation for deeming advances as dividend, linking claimed improvement cost to the sold shop, and computing section 14A disallowance was not conclusively established, the ITAT restored each matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and de novo adjudication. The claim that advances were business-related required supporting evidence such as bills, delivery challans or agreements; the indexed cost of improvement claim depended on proving the Settlement Commission disclosure related to the same asset; and the Rule 8D computation had to be recalculated because the investment figure was incorrect. Consequential set-off of business loss and interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C was also remanded. en-us Mon, 26 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Sep 2022 09:42:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428372 Where the factual foundation for deeming advances as dividend, linking claimed improvement cost to the sold shop, and computing section 14A disallowance was not conclusively established, the ITAT restored each matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and de novo adjudication. The claim that advances were business-related required supporting evidence such as bills, delivery challans or agreements; the indexed cost of improvement claim depended on proving the Settlement Commission disclosure related to the same asset; and the Rule 8D computation had to be recalculated because the investment figure was incorrect. Consequential set-off of business loss and interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C was also remanded. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 26 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428372