https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448087 The ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, determining that the addition of Rs. 19,96,331/- to the disclosed salary income was unwarranted. The ITAT found that the Assessing Officer (AO) erred by not adhering to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) to verify the assessee's contentions based on existing records, including Form 16. Consequently, the ITAT allowed the appeal, concluding that the AO's addition was unjustified, and the decision was pronounced in open court on 28/12/2023. en-us Thu, 28 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Jan 2024 09:24:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448087 The ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, determining that the addition of Rs. 19,96,331/- to the disclosed salary income was unwarranted. The ITAT found that the Assessing Officer (AO) erred by not adhering to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) to verify the assessee's contentions based on existing records, including Form 16. Consequently, the ITAT allowed the appeal, concluding that the AO's addition was unjustified, and the decision was pronounced in open court on 28/12/2023. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 28 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448087