<?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>ITAT upholds deletion of cash addition; assessee merely a commission agent.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84895</link>
    <description>The ITAT dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal against the CIT(A)&#039;s order deleting the cash addition in the assessee company&#039;s hands. The ITAT held that the assessee acted merely as a commission agent, and the payments related to Murlidhar Infracon Pvt. Ltd. The conveyance deeds showed that Murlidhar Infracon Pvt. Ltd. accepted making payments to farmers before its incorporation, indicating its directors/shareholders arranged the payments. No evidence suggested the payments were routed through the assessee&#039;s bank accounts. Hence, in the absence of cogent material, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s findings and dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jan 2025 08:17:50 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Jan 2025 08:17:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=789327" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>ITAT upholds deletion of cash addition; assessee merely a commission agent.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84895</link>
      <description>The ITAT dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal against the CIT(A)&#039;s order deleting the cash addition in the assessee company&#039;s hands. The ITAT held that the assessee acted merely as a commission agent, and the payments related to Murlidhar Infracon Pvt. Ltd. The conveyance deeds showed that Murlidhar Infracon Pvt. Ltd. accepted making payments to farmers before its incorporation, indicating its directors/shareholders arranged the payments. No evidence suggested the payments were routed through the assessee&#039;s bank accounts. Hence, in the absence of cogent material, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s findings and dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jan 2025 08:17:50 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84895</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>