https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772447 The ITAT Mumbai dismissed the assessee's appeal challenging additions under sections 68, 69, and 69(C) for unexplained credits, investments, and expenditure. The resolution professional acknowledged having no material evidence to contest the additions made by the AO and confirmed by CIT(A). The Tribunal found no legal infirmity warranting interference. Regarding jurisdiction during Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, the Tribunal held that income tax authorities retain limited jurisdiction to assess tax liability but cannot recover dues during moratorium under IBC 2016, functioning as creditors who must stake claims before the liquidator. en-us Tue, 29 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Jun 2025 07:29:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772447 The ITAT Mumbai dismissed the assessee's appeal challenging additions under sections 68, 69, and 69(C) for unexplained credits, investments, and expenditure. The resolution professional acknowledged having no material evidence to contest the additions made by the AO and confirmed by CIT(A). The Tribunal found no legal infirmity warranting interference. Regarding jurisdiction during Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, the Tribunal held that income tax authorities retain limited jurisdiction to assess tax liability but cannot recover dues during moratorium under IBC 2016, functioning as creditors who must stake claims before the liquidator. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 29 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772447