https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78061 The ITAT Delhi addressed various issues in the case. Firstly, regarding addition u/s 68 due to a difference in Form 26AS and income in the return, CIT(A) deleted the addition as the amount was already accounted for in a previous assessment year, attributing the discrepancy to an error by M/s Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. The Tribunal upheld this decision based on reconciliation presented. Secondly, disallowance u/s 37 on salary/wages was challenged, but CIT(A) found evidence of proper payments to employees and deleted the addition. Lastly, disallowance u/s 14A was not warranted as no exempt income was earned by the assessee, following the precedent set in Cheminvest Limited case. en-us Mon, 03 Jun 2024 06:03:45 +0530 Mon, 03 Jun 2024 06:03:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78061 The ITAT Delhi addressed various issues in the case. Firstly, regarding addition u/s 68 due to a difference in Form 26AS and income in the return, CIT(A) deleted the addition as the amount was already accounted for in a previous assessment year, attributing the discrepancy to an error by M/s Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. The Tribunal upheld this decision based on reconciliation presented. Secondly, disallowance u/s 37 on salary/wages was challenged, but CIT(A) found evidence of proper payments to employees and deleted the addition. Lastly, disallowance u/s 14A was not warranted as no exempt income was earned by the assessee, following the precedent set in Cheminvest Limited case. Highlights Income Tax Mon, 03 Jun 2024 06:03:45 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78061