https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756197 ITAT Mumbai ruled on three issues regarding proprietor's capital additions. First, regarding increase in proprietor's capital, the tribunal confirmed the addition but held it taxable under section 41(1) instead of section 68, as the amounts represented trade creditors written off rather than unexplained credits. Second, for unsecured loans, the tribunal allowed the appeal after finding adequate documentation including ITR details, PAN, Aadhaar, and bank account information establishing identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of lenders. Third, regarding bogus purchases under section 69C, the tribunal dismissed revenue's appeal, upholding CIT(A)'s deletion of addition as AO relied solely on CBIC red flag without objective investigation despite no GST department action against the party. en-us Mon, 22 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Jul 2024 08:09:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756197 ITAT Mumbai ruled on three issues regarding proprietor's capital additions. First, regarding increase in proprietor's capital, the tribunal confirmed the addition but held it taxable under section 41(1) instead of section 68, as the amounts represented trade creditors written off rather than unexplained credits. Second, for unsecured loans, the tribunal allowed the appeal after finding adequate documentation including ITR details, PAN, Aadhaar, and bank account information establishing identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of lenders. Third, regarding bogus purchases under section 69C, the tribunal dismissed revenue's appeal, upholding CIT(A)'s deletion of addition as AO relied solely on CBIC red flag without objective investigation despite no GST department action against the party. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 22 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756197