https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773276 ITAT Delhi upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made by AO based on loose papers seized during search. AO alleged assessee had 25% share in undisclosed expenditure and made protective addition as unexplained expenditure. CIT(A) found these expenses were duly recorded in books of four entities and AO's verification showed no negative inference. Coordinate Bench had dismissed Revenue's appeals for three companies, ruling separate additions unnecessary when expenditure properly recorded. Revenue failed to controvert findings. Regarding cash deposits, ITAT followed SC precedent in Abhisar Buildwell case, holding no additions permissible without incriminating material for non-abated years. Appeals dismissed, decided for assessee. en-us Fri, 06 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Jun 2025 08:34:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773276 ITAT Delhi upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made by AO based on loose papers seized during search. AO alleged assessee had 25% share in undisclosed expenditure and made protective addition as unexplained expenditure. CIT(A) found these expenses were duly recorded in books of four entities and AO's verification showed no negative inference. Coordinate Bench had dismissed Revenue's appeals for three companies, ruling separate additions unnecessary when expenditure properly recorded. Revenue failed to controvert findings. Regarding cash deposits, ITAT followed SC precedent in Abhisar Buildwell case, holding no additions permissible without incriminating material for non-abated years. Appeals dismissed, decided for assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 06 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773276