https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759918 ITAT Mumbai set aside two issues back to AO for fresh consideration. First, regarding depreciation disallowance under Section 32, the tribunal found CIT-A failed to consider assessee's legal contentions and merely confirmed disallowance based on notes to accounts. Second, concerning unexplained cash credit addition under Section 68, neither AO nor CIT-A properly examined how the addition amount was calculated, despite assessee's claim of no fresh credits and unchanged share capital for three years. Both issues remanded to AO with directions for proper examination and fresh decisions. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes. en-us Thu, 28 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Oct 2024 08:58:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759918 ITAT Mumbai set aside two issues back to AO for fresh consideration. First, regarding depreciation disallowance under Section 32, the tribunal found CIT-A failed to consider assessee's legal contentions and merely confirmed disallowance based on notes to accounts. Second, concerning unexplained cash credit addition under Section 68, neither AO nor CIT-A properly examined how the addition amount was calculated, despite assessee's claim of no fresh credits and unchanged share capital for three years. Both issues remanded to AO with directions for proper examination and fresh decisions. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 28 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759918