https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764579 ITAT Chennai dismissed Revenue's appeal challenging CIT(A)'s order. The tribunal held no violation of Rule 46A occurred as CIT(A) exercised co-terminus powers to call for evidence, making Rule 46A(1)-(3) inapplicable per Rule 46(4). Regarding additions under Section 68, ITAT upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of Rs. 60 lakh unsecured loan addition after finding satisfactory evidence of loan source from assessee's mother. Similarly, sundry creditors addition was properly deleted as CIT(A) found creditors were paid in subsequent years and formed part of business transactions, making separate additions under Section 68 or 41(1) legally untenable. CIT(A) correctly restricted estimated income to 6% of turnover. en-us Fri, 10 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Jan 2025 12:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764579 ITAT Chennai dismissed Revenue's appeal challenging CIT(A)'s order. The tribunal held no violation of Rule 46A occurred as CIT(A) exercised co-terminus powers to call for evidence, making Rule 46A(1)-(3) inapplicable per Rule 46(4). Regarding additions under Section 68, ITAT upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of Rs. 60 lakh unsecured loan addition after finding satisfactory evidence of loan source from assessee's mother. Similarly, sundry creditors addition was properly deleted as CIT(A) found creditors were paid in subsequent years and formed part of business transactions, making separate additions under Section 68 or 41(1) legally untenable. CIT(A) correctly restricted estimated income to 6% of turnover. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 10 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764579