The ITAT held that the CIT (A) erred in admitting additional evidence without following Rule 46A....

The ITAT held that the CIT (A) erred in admitting additional evidence without following Rule 46A. Deletion of additions on forfeited amount and various expenses was justified. The Delhi High Court precedent supported treating forfeited advance as business expenditure. The CIT (A) deleted disallowance of various expenses due to lack of AO's remand report. The ITAT upheld the deletion of disallowance u/s 14A. The case was remanded to CIT (A) for compliance with Rule 46A and fresh decision on specified grounds. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X