<?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>2025 (2) TMI 643 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766096</link>
    <description>ITAT Hyderabad dismissed Revenue&#039;s appeal on multiple grounds. The AO&#039;s adoption of Rs. 3,000/- per sq. ft. sale price for commercial space was rejected as it lacked concrete evidence beyond statements, with no comparable sales data provided. The disallowance of reimbursement expenses was overturned following precedent that Revenue cannot take contrary positions against group assessees. Addition of Rs. 83 lakhs from out-of-court settlement was deleted as it constituted double taxation since assessee already offered this amount as income. Finally, CIT(A)&#039;s deletion of expenditure addition was upheld as proper evidence through banking channels was provided by assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Feb 2025 08:10:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=798921" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 643 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766096</link>
      <description>ITAT Hyderabad dismissed Revenue&#039;s appeal on multiple grounds. The AO&#039;s adoption of Rs. 3,000/- per sq. ft. sale price for commercial space was rejected as it lacked concrete evidence beyond statements, with no comparable sales data provided. The disallowance of reimbursement expenses was overturned following precedent that Revenue cannot take contrary positions against group assessees. Addition of Rs. 83 lakhs from out-of-court settlement was deleted as it constituted double taxation since assessee already offered this amount as income. Finally, CIT(A)&#039;s deletion of expenditure addition was upheld as proper evidence through banking channels was provided by assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766096</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>