https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765419 ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal on both grounds. Regarding addition u/s 68 for unsecured loan from appellant's wife, the tribunal held that appellant successfully discharged the primary onus by establishing identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lender through documentary evidence. Revenue failed to controvert the evidence. The addition by AO, affirmed by CIT(A), was unsustainable. On HRA exemption denial u/s 10(13A), the tribunal found the denial unwarranted as eligibility wasn't disputed and bank statements were ignored by CIT(A). Identical HRA claim was allowed in subsequent assessment year 2018-19. en-us Wed, 29 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 31 Jan 2025 07:54:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765419 ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal on both grounds. Regarding addition u/s 68 for unsecured loan from appellant's wife, the tribunal held that appellant successfully discharged the primary onus by establishing identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lender through documentary evidence. Revenue failed to controvert the evidence. The addition by AO, affirmed by CIT(A), was unsustainable. On HRA exemption denial u/s 10(13A), the tribunal found the denial unwarranted as eligibility wasn't disputed and bank statements were ignored by CIT(A). Identical HRA claim was allowed in subsequent assessment year 2018-19. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 29 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765419