https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754587 ITAT Mumbai dismissed revenue's appeal regarding addition under Section 69 for unexplained investment. The case involved an agreement showing director's individual name instead of company name. CIT(A) correctly found this was a bona fide mistake subsequently corrected. ITAT held that Section 69 requirements were not satisfied as the assessee provided plausible explanation supported by material on record. No unexplained investment existed warranting addition under Section 69. en-us Wed, 17 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Jun 2024 08:54:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754587 ITAT Mumbai dismissed revenue's appeal regarding addition under Section 69 for unexplained investment. The case involved an agreement showing director's individual name instead of company name. CIT(A) correctly found this was a bona fide mistake subsequently corrected. ITAT held that Section 69 requirements were not satisfied as the assessee provided plausible explanation supported by material on record. No unexplained investment existed warranting addition under Section 69. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 17 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754587