https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416528 The ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the appellant in both issues. For the first issue regarding disallowance under section 69C of the Act for unexplained expenditure due to a difference in creditor balances, the ITAT held that the provisions of section 69C did not apply as there was no evidence of unrecorded expenditure by the appellant. The assessing officer was directed to delete the addition of Rs. 3,22,962. In the second issue concerning the disallowance of interest paid on loans and advances to employees under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, the ITAT reversed the decision, directing the assessing officer to delete the disallowance of Rs. 5,36,107. en-us Wed, 29 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Dec 2021 16:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416528 The ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the appellant in both issues. For the first issue regarding disallowance under section 69C of the Act for unexplained expenditure due to a difference in creditor balances, the ITAT held that the provisions of section 69C did not apply as there was no evidence of unrecorded expenditure by the appellant. The assessing officer was directed to delete the addition of Rs. 3,22,962. In the second issue concerning the disallowance of interest paid on loans and advances to employees under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, the ITAT reversed the decision, directing the assessing officer to delete the disallowance of Rs. 5,36,107. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 29 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416528