https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763399 ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the assessee's appeal on three grounds. First, addition u/s 68 for refund of advances was deleted as the assessee had furnished complete details of parties, advances were made through banking channels in earlier years, and refunds were received through banking channels. The fact that refunding parties differed from original advance recipients was insufficient grounds for addition. Second, disallowance of depreciation on capital assets was reversed as the assessee maintained assets were installed and operational, offered physical verification which AO declined, and payments were made through banking channels. Third, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was deleted following deletion of substantive additions. en-us Mon, 16 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:00:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763399 ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the assessee's appeal on three grounds. First, addition u/s 68 for refund of advances was deleted as the assessee had furnished complete details of parties, advances were made through banking channels in earlier years, and refunds were received through banking channels. The fact that refunding parties differed from original advance recipients was insufficient grounds for addition. Second, disallowance of depreciation on capital assets was reversed as the assessee maintained assets were installed and operational, offered physical verification which AO declined, and payments were made through banking channels. Third, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was deleted following deletion of substantive additions. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 16 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763399