https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775044 The ITAT Delhi allowed the appellant company's appeal regarding disallowance of sum claimed under an MOU with another company. The revenue authorities had treated the profit-sharing arrangement as a tax evasion device, but the tribunal found no cogent material supporting this conclusion while sufficient evidence existed to support the assessee's position. The addition was deleted. However, regarding additions under section 40(a)(ii) for income tax and deferred tax liability, the CIT(A) correctly observed that the assessee had already added back these amounts in the return filed, and since these amounts were not claimed in the P&L account for computing taxable income, the AO should have corrected the computation accordingly. This ground was dismissed as infructuous. en-us Wed, 16 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Jul 2025 08:22:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775044 The ITAT Delhi allowed the appellant company's appeal regarding disallowance of sum claimed under an MOU with another company. The revenue authorities had treated the profit-sharing arrangement as a tax evasion device, but the tribunal found no cogent material supporting this conclusion while sufficient evidence existed to support the assessee's position. The addition was deleted. However, regarding additions under section 40(a)(ii) for income tax and deferred tax liability, the CIT(A) correctly observed that the assessee had already added back these amounts in the return filed, and since these amounts were not claimed in the P&L account for computing taxable income, the AO should have corrected the computation accordingly. This ground was dismissed as infructuous. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 16 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775044