<?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 (10) TMI 36 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779240</link>
    <description>ITAT DELHI - AT upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s deletions and allowed the assessee on multiple grounds. The tribunal found no infirmity in deleting the ad hoc addition for alleged bogus expenses after verification of confirmations and agreements. Additions for ledger differences with certain creditors, temporary site installation costs, provisional cost accruals (with TDS compliance), and cash-payment disallowance under s.40A(3) were deleted. The tribunal treated write-offs of dormant/unused assets as revenue losses (allowing amortization claimed) and accepted the assessee&#039;s treatment of increased work-in-progress as allowable revenue expenditure. Revenue&#039;s appeals on these issues were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2025 09:07:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=855614" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 36 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779240</link>
      <description>ITAT DELHI - AT upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s deletions and allowed the assessee on multiple grounds. The tribunal found no infirmity in deleting the ad hoc addition for alleged bogus expenses after verification of confirmations and agreements. Additions for ledger differences with certain creditors, temporary site installation costs, provisional cost accruals (with TDS compliance), and cash-payment disallowance under s.40A(3) were deleted. The tribunal treated write-offs of dormant/unused assets as revenue losses (allowing amortization claimed) and accepted the assessee&#039;s treatment of increased work-in-progress as allowable revenue expenditure. Revenue&#039;s appeals on these issues were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779240</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>