https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777087 ITAT (MUMBAI) allowed the appeal and deleted additions under section 40A(2). The tribunal found payments of interest at 15% reasonable given similar rates in adjacent years and absence of a benchmark to treat them as excessive. Job charges and purchases from related parties were not disputed on record, so disallowance was unjustified. Salary paid to an employee was comparable to subsequent years and not excessive. The AO's disallowance-based solely on non-response to s.133(6) notices-was held improper where no adverse material or examination of services was placed on record. en-us Mon, 18 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Aug 2025 10:23:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777087 ITAT (MUMBAI) allowed the appeal and deleted additions under section 40A(2). The tribunal found payments of interest at 15% reasonable given similar rates in adjacent years and absence of a benchmark to treat them as excessive. Job charges and purchases from related parties were not disputed on record, so disallowance was unjustified. Salary paid to an employee was comparable to subsequent years and not excessive. The AO's disallowance-based solely on non-response to s.133(6) notices-was held improper where no adverse material or examination of services was placed on record. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 18 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777087