https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450177 ITAT Surat dismissed revenue's appeal on multiple grounds. Regarding Section 69 addition for loan repayments, tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s deletion noting transactions were recorded in books and repayments don't constitute investments. On Section 24 versus business head interest deduction, CIT(A) correctly allowed interest on housing loan under Section 36(1)(iii) as business expenditure since loan was secured against business asset for business purposes. For Section 68 cash deposit addition during demonetization, tribunal confirmed CIT(A)'s deletion as deposits were from disclosed sources in recorded bank accounts. Revenue's allegation of Rule 46A violation regarding additional evidence was rejected as CIT(A) properly forwarded evidence to AO for examination. en-us Thu, 15 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Feb 2024 07:55:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450177 ITAT Surat dismissed revenue's appeal on multiple grounds. Regarding Section 69 addition for loan repayments, tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s deletion noting transactions were recorded in books and repayments don't constitute investments. On Section 24 versus business head interest deduction, CIT(A) correctly allowed interest on housing loan under Section 36(1)(iii) as business expenditure since loan was secured against business asset for business purposes. For Section 68 cash deposit addition during demonetization, tribunal confirmed CIT(A)'s deletion as deposits were from disclosed sources in recorded bank accounts. Revenue's allegation of Rule 46A violation regarding additional evidence was rejected as CIT(A) properly forwarded evidence to AO for examination. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 15 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450177