https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450317 ITAT Delhi ruled on additions under sections 68 and 2(22)(e). For the section 68 addition of Rs. 80 lakhs as unexplained cash credit, the tribunal found that the assessee adequately proved the lender's identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness through confirmations, IT returns, bank statements, and company financials showing the lender held 98.4% shareholding with sufficient funds. The AO's addition was deleted. However, for the section 2(22)(e) addition regarding deemed dividend, the tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision as the assessee failed to provide substantial evidence that the loan was for business purposes despite claiming expertise in land arrangements. The appeal was partly allowed. en-us Thu, 29 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Mar 2024 07:24:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450317 ITAT Delhi ruled on additions under sections 68 and 2(22)(e). For the section 68 addition of Rs. 80 lakhs as unexplained cash credit, the tribunal found that the assessee adequately proved the lender's identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness through confirmations, IT returns, bank statements, and company financials showing the lender held 98.4% shareholding with sufficient funds. The AO's addition was deleted. However, for the section 2(22)(e) addition regarding deemed dividend, the tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision as the assessee failed to provide substantial evidence that the loan was for business purposes despite claiming expertise in land arrangements. The appeal was partly allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 29 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450317