https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753360 ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee on two issues. Regarding unexplained cash deposits u/s 68, the Tribunal found that the AO failed to examine the cash book entries thoroughly and ignored opening cash balances and debtor realizations when correlating bank deposits with withdrawals. The addition was deleted as the assessee demonstrated deposits were from legitimate sources. On interest disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii), the Tribunal held that despite no current year property transactions, the assessee's real estate business status was established in earlier years and accepted by Revenue consistently. The interest expenditure was deemed allowable business deduction. en-us Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 31 May 2024 08:37:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753360 ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee on two issues. Regarding unexplained cash deposits u/s 68, the Tribunal found that the AO failed to examine the cash book entries thoroughly and ignored opening cash balances and debtor realizations when correlating bank deposits with withdrawals. The addition was deleted as the assessee demonstrated deposits were from legitimate sources. On interest disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii), the Tribunal held that despite no current year property transactions, the assessee's real estate business status was established in earlier years and accepted by Revenue consistently. The interest expenditure was deemed allowable business deduction. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753360