https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762536 ITAT Chennai allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the addition made by AO regarding rent income difference. The tribunal found that AO erroneously considered agreed rent per agreement instead of actual rent received of Rs. 3,74,879 from tenant company, with corresponding TDS of Rs. 37,492 as reflected in Form 26AS. The assessee had raised proper bills and paid CGST/SGST at 9% each on monthly rent received from July 2017 to March 2018, supporting actual receipt. CIT(A)'s confirmation of the addition was overturned as unjustified. en-us Fri, 29 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Dec 2024 21:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762536 ITAT Chennai allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the addition made by AO regarding rent income difference. The tribunal found that AO erroneously considered agreed rent per agreement instead of actual rent received of Rs. 3,74,879 from tenant company, with corresponding TDS of Rs. 37,492 as reflected in Form 26AS. The assessee had raised proper bills and paid CGST/SGST at 9% each on monthly rent received from July 2017 to March 2018, supporting actual receipt. CIT(A)'s confirmation of the addition was overturned as unjustified. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 29 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762536