https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756052 ITAT Mumbai upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of additions under Section 69A regarding unexplained advances. Despite date punching errors in books, loan transactions were properly recorded with bank statements and party confirmations. Court held Section 69A provisions not satisfied as assessee wasn't owner of unrecorded assets. Additionally, ITAT confirmed deletion of Rs.1.70 crores addition relating to transactions with supplier company, finding it part of previously decided Rs.2 crores transaction and constituted double addition by AO. Revenue's appeal dismissed. en-us Mon, 22 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Jul 2024 11:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756052 ITAT Mumbai upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of additions under Section 69A regarding unexplained advances. Despite date punching errors in books, loan transactions were properly recorded with bank statements and party confirmations. Court held Section 69A provisions not satisfied as assessee wasn't owner of unrecorded assets. Additionally, ITAT confirmed deletion of Rs.1.70 crores addition relating to transactions with supplier company, finding it part of previously decided Rs.2 crores transaction and constituted double addition by AO. Revenue's appeal dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 22 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756052