https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774603 ITAT Delhi upheld CIT(A)'s decision deleting addition u/s 68 for undisclosed income of Rs. 4.50 crores, finding it was a security deposit under agreement with PACL that assessee was legally obligated to refund, not income. ITAT also confirmed deletion of unexplained cash credit addition after assessee provided adequate documentation proving lender's identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness including PAN, ITR, balance sheet. Regarding depreciation, ITAT upheld CIT(A)'s partial relief allowing computer depreciation while rejecting car depreciation claim due to insufficient documentation. en-us Wed, 09 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Jul 2025 08:39:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774603 ITAT Delhi upheld CIT(A)'s decision deleting addition u/s 68 for undisclosed income of Rs. 4.50 crores, finding it was a security deposit under agreement with PACL that assessee was legally obligated to refund, not income. ITAT also confirmed deletion of unexplained cash credit addition after assessee provided adequate documentation proving lender's identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness including PAN, ITR, balance sheet. Regarding depreciation, ITAT upheld CIT(A)'s partial relief allowing computer depreciation while rejecting car depreciation claim due to insufficient documentation. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 09 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774603