https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=77600 The legal judgment addressed various issues. Firstly, regarding addition u/s 68 for unsecured loans, the AO questioned the creditworthiness of the loans. The CIT(A) deleted the additions as the appellant provided detailed evidence of the loans' identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness. The AO's additions were based on surmises and incorrect facts, with issued summons to the wrong address. The appeal on this ground was dismissed. Secondly, ad-hoc disallowance of expenses was made despite the appellant submitting evidence. The CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition, and the appeal on this ground was dismissed. Lastly, the deduction u/s 80IA was initially denied due to the appellant not being an Indian company. However, based on precedents like ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. and BMW Industries Ltd., the deduction was allowed by the CIT(A). en-us Tue, 21 May 2024 08:21:06 +0530 Tue, 21 May 2024 08:21:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=77600 The legal judgment addressed various issues. Firstly, regarding addition u/s 68 for unsecured loans, the AO questioned the creditworthiness of the loans. The CIT(A) deleted the additions as the appellant provided detailed evidence of the loans' identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness. The AO's additions were based on surmises and incorrect facts, with issued summons to the wrong address. The appeal on this ground was dismissed. Secondly, ad-hoc disallowance of expenses was made despite the appellant submitting evidence. The CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition, and the appeal on this ground was dismissed. Lastly, the deduction u/s 80IA was initially denied due to the appellant not being an Indian company. However, based on precedents like ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. and BMW Industries Ltd., the deduction was allowed by the CIT(A). Highlights Income Tax Tue, 21 May 2024 08:21:06 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=77600