https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441050 The CIT(A) deleted the addition made under section 68 of the Act, citing lack of substantial reasons by the AO and violation of natural justice principles. The genuineness and creditworthiness of the investor company were upheld based on documentary evidence. The CIT(A) exercised concurrent powers under section 250(4) of the Act, emphasizing consistency in assessments. Discrepancies with previous court decisions were distinguished, highlighting insufficient evidence by the AO. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, directing the AO to re-examine the source of investment issue. en-us Tue, 11 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Jul 2023 18:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441050 The CIT(A) deleted the addition made under section 68 of the Act, citing lack of substantial reasons by the AO and violation of natural justice principles. The genuineness and creditworthiness of the investor company were upheld based on documentary evidence. The CIT(A) exercised concurrent powers under section 250(4) of the Act, emphasizing consistency in assessments. Discrepancies with previous court decisions were distinguished, highlighting insufficient evidence by the AO. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, directing the AO to re-examine the source of investment issue. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 11 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441050