https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781672 ITAT (Delhi) held that the assessee, having given an undertaking before the HC, could not challenge the validity of the s.148 notice; the CIT(A)'s finding that the reopening was barred by limitation was reversed and Revenue's grounds 3 and 4 were allowed. On the s.68 addition for alleged accommodation entries, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion, finding the assessee's documentary evidence (purchase bills, vouchers, VAT returns and bank payments) established these as genuine outstanding trade creditors and not siphoned or accommodation funds. en-us Tue, 30 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Nov 2025 08:52:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781672 ITAT (Delhi) held that the assessee, having given an undertaking before the HC, could not challenge the validity of the s.148 notice; the CIT(A)'s finding that the reopening was barred by limitation was reversed and Revenue's grounds 3 and 4 were allowed. On the s.68 addition for alleged accommodation entries, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion, finding the assessee's documentary evidence (purchase bills, vouchers, VAT returns and bank payments) established these as genuine outstanding trade creditors and not siphoned or accommodation funds. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 30 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781672