https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344281 The court ruled in favor of the assessee, dismissing the appeal by the department. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that fixed deposits in the form of unsecured loans accepted during the relevant accounting period could not be added under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The court agreed with the deletion of the addition related to unexplained deposits due to the appellant's inability to substantiate the source of fixed deposits. The judgment emphasized the importance of proper documentation and substantiation of financial transactions to avoid income discrepancies. en-us Tue, 16 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Jun 2017 08:11:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344281 The court ruled in favor of the assessee, dismissing the appeal by the department. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that fixed deposits in the form of unsecured loans accepted during the relevant accounting period could not be added under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The court agreed with the deletion of the addition related to unexplained deposits due to the appellant's inability to substantiate the source of fixed deposits. The judgment emphasized the importance of proper documentation and substantiation of financial transactions to avoid income discrepancies. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 16 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344281