<?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>2026 (4) TMI 810 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789741</link>
    <description>Protective addition under section 68 for alleged accommodation entries was held unsustainable where audited books, bills, vouchers, bank records and ledger details showed genuine livestock sales, the transactions were cross-verified, and no corresponding substantive addition was made in the purchaser&#039;s assessment. On that factual basis, the receipts could not be treated as unexplained credits, and the related protective addition was deleted. The consequential ad hoc commission addition at 1% of bank credits also failed because it depended entirely on the rejected accommodation-entry allegation and lacked an independent factual basis. The commentary states that both additions were rightly deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 08:03:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=896647" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 810 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789741</link>
      <description>Protective addition under section 68 for alleged accommodation entries was held unsustainable where audited books, bills, vouchers, bank records and ledger details showed genuine livestock sales, the transactions were cross-verified, and no corresponding substantive addition was made in the purchaser&#039;s assessment. On that factual basis, the receipts could not be treated as unexplained credits, and the related protective addition was deleted. The consequential ad hoc commission addition at 1% of bank credits also failed because it depended entirely on the rejected accommodation-entry allegation and lacked an independent factual basis. The commentary states that both additions were rightly deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789741</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>