https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757309 ITAT Pune allowed the appeal, directing AO to delete the addition. The tribunal held that AO had no jurisdiction to make ad-hoc 50% disallowance of expenditure under section 57(iii) without challenging genuineness or pointing out defects in supporting documents. Since bills and vouchers were submitted, expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for earning income from dispensing medicines, and AO admitted it was not capital expenditure, the disallowance was unjustified. The tribunal relied on Petroleum Sports Promotion Board precedent. en-us Fri, 02 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Aug 2024 09:08:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757309 ITAT Pune allowed the appeal, directing AO to delete the addition. The tribunal held that AO had no jurisdiction to make ad-hoc 50% disallowance of expenditure under section 57(iii) without challenging genuineness or pointing out defects in supporting documents. Since bills and vouchers were submitted, expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for earning income from dispensing medicines, and AO admitted it was not capital expenditure, the disallowance was unjustified. The tribunal relied on Petroleum Sports Promotion Board precedent. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 02 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757309