https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769122 ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal on multiple grounds. The tribunal held that Section 68 addition for unsecured loans was correctly deleted by CIT(A) as loans were received in earlier years with no fresh credit in the assessment year. Regarding property sale, CIT(A) properly computed long-term capital loss with indexation benefit instead of short-term capital gain as determined by AO. The tribunal also deleted additions for bogus purchases and rejected books estimation, finding no discrepancies in stock records and noting that goods were sold profitably, making manipulation allegations unjustified. en-us Wed, 16 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Apr 2025 08:32:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769122 ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal on multiple grounds. The tribunal held that Section 68 addition for unsecured loans was correctly deleted by CIT(A) as loans were received in earlier years with no fresh credit in the assessment year. Regarding property sale, CIT(A) properly computed long-term capital loss with indexation benefit instead of short-term capital gain as determined by AO. The tribunal also deleted additions for bogus purchases and rejected books estimation, finding no discrepancies in stock records and noting that goods were sold profitably, making manipulation allegations unjustified. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 16 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769122