Noting that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) have taken into consideration the explanation offered by the Assessee during the assessment proceedings in relation to the difference in the.
Finding that the assessee has explained the details of the earning of the amount which was rightly deposited during the demonetization period, the Rajkot ITAT held that the addition confirmed by.
The Chennai ITAT explained that a typographical error in mentioning incorrect amount of expenses in Form 3CD does not call for any addition by the Assessing Officer to assessee s income. The.
On finding that the addition is based upon conjecture and surmises and not on records which were available before the authorities, the Kolkata ITAT set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) and.
While relegating the taxpayer to file a revised appeal memo in Form No. 35 either on the e-filing portal of the department or physical form, the Jaipur ITAT restored the matter back to the file of.