https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465954 Whether CIT(A) properly admitted additional documentary evidence under Rule 46A, Income Tax Rules, 1962, without affording the Assessing Officer (AO) opportunity to examine/rebut: held that documents filed first before CIT(A) were additional evidence and admission without confronting the AO violated Rule 46A; consequence - VACATION of CIT(A)'s reliance on those documents and RESTORATION of the matter to CIT(A) with direction to re-decide after furnishing the said evidence to the AO for examination/rebuttal. Whether disallowance of interest on unsecured loans could stand: held that the interest disallowance is inseparable from the disputed loans and any vacating of additions based on improperly admitted evidence is impermissible; consequence - matter remitted for fresh decision as directed above. en-us Mon, 03 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Jan 2026 08:44:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465954 Whether CIT(A) properly admitted additional documentary evidence under Rule 46A, Income Tax Rules, 1962, without affording the Assessing Officer (AO) opportunity to examine/rebut: held that documents filed first before CIT(A) were additional evidence and admission without confronting the AO violated Rule 46A; consequence - VACATION of CIT(A)'s reliance on those documents and RESTORATION of the matter to CIT(A) with direction to re-decide after furnishing the said evidence to the AO for examination/rebuttal. Whether disallowance of interest on unsecured loans could stand: held that the interest disallowance is inseparable from the disputed loans and any vacating of additions based on improperly admitted evidence is impermissible; consequence - matter remitted for fresh decision as directed above. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 03 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465954