<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2024 (6) TMI 687 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754080</link>
    <description>ITAT Ahmedabad upheld CIT(A)&#039;s deletion of additions in multiple issues. Regarding stock under-valuation, the tribunal held that bank statements for credit facilities cannot solely determine closing stock value without independent verification. For Section 14A disallowance on share investments, the tribunal ruled the provision inapplicable when no exempt income is claimed and substantial interest-free funds exist. Interest on unpaid purchase price to non-related party POSCO was allowed as legitimate business expense given contractual obligations and commercial necessity. Keyman insurance expenses were permitted as the company held insurable interest, not individual directors. Revenue&#039;s appeal dismissed across all grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Jun 2024 10:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=756592" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (6) TMI 687 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754080</link>
      <description>ITAT Ahmedabad upheld CIT(A)&#039;s deletion of additions in multiple issues. Regarding stock under-valuation, the tribunal held that bank statements for credit facilities cannot solely determine closing stock value without independent verification. For Section 14A disallowance on share investments, the tribunal ruled the provision inapplicable when no exempt income is claimed and substantial interest-free funds exist. Interest on unpaid purchase price to non-related party POSCO was allowed as legitimate business expense given contractual obligations and commercial necessity. Keyman insurance expenses were permitted as the company held insurable interest, not individual directors. Revenue&#039;s appeal dismissed across all grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754080</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>