https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387725 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in both cases involving unexplained credit additions. In the first case concerning M/s. J. J. Metals, the Tribunal found that a significant portion of the amount was explained through banking channels, deeming the addition of Rs. 2,94,500 unjustified. As a result, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete this addition. Similarly, in the case of M/s. Poonam Realtors, the Tribunal overturned the decision of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and instructed the Assessing Officer to remove the addition of Rs. 3,00,000 due to the availability of the correct PAN details and lack of evidence disputing the genuineness of the transactions. en-us Tue, 24 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 Oct 2019 09:14:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387725 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in both cases involving unexplained credit additions. In the first case concerning M/s. J. J. Metals, the Tribunal found that a significant portion of the amount was explained through banking channels, deeming the addition of Rs. 2,94,500 unjustified. As a result, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete this addition. Similarly, in the case of M/s. Poonam Realtors, the Tribunal overturned the decision of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and instructed the Assessing Officer to remove the addition of Rs. 3,00,000 due to the availability of the correct PAN details and lack of evidence disputing the genuineness of the transactions. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 24 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387725