https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753928 ITAT Ahmedabad ruled in favor of the assessee on two issues. First, regarding disallowance of interest expenses under Section 40A(2), the tribunal held that provisions apply only to related parties, not unrelated parties. Since 20 parties were unrelated and AO failed to establish fair market value properly, the disallowance was deleted. Second, concerning addition under Section 68 for unsecured loans, the tribunal found that assessee provided adequate documentary evidence while AO made insufficient inquiry into genuineness of parties, resulting in deletion of the addition. en-us Mon, 10 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Jun 2024 08:10:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753928 ITAT Ahmedabad ruled in favor of the assessee on two issues. First, regarding disallowance of interest expenses under Section 40A(2), the tribunal held that provisions apply only to related parties, not unrelated parties. Since 20 parties were unrelated and AO failed to establish fair market value properly, the disallowance was deleted. Second, concerning addition under Section 68 for unsecured loans, the tribunal found that assessee provided adequate documentary evidence while AO made insufficient inquiry into genuineness of parties, resulting in deletion of the addition. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 10 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753928