https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436722 HC upheld the Tribunal's deletions and findings. The Tribunal correctly rejected the AO's addition under s.68 merely because the creditor did not respond to summons; non-repayment and non-response were insufficient to make the addition. The ITAT's deletion of the amount written off was sustained, the Tribunal having found it represented interest earlier offered to tax and properly written off when irrecoverable from the debtor. The Tribunal also rightly held income from the respondent's business centre to be business income, allowing related expenses and interest under s.36(1)(iii). en-us Tue, 07 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Sep 2025 11:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436722 HC upheld the Tribunal's deletions and findings. The Tribunal correctly rejected the AO's addition under s.68 merely because the creditor did not respond to summons; non-repayment and non-response were insufficient to make the addition. The ITAT's deletion of the amount written off was sustained, the Tribunal having found it represented interest earlier offered to tax and properly written off when irrecoverable from the debtor. The Tribunal also rightly held income from the respondent's business centre to be business income, allowing related expenses and interest under s.36(1)(iii). Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 07 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436722