https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772831 ITAT Jaipur allowed the assessee's appeal on two grounds. First, regarding undisclosed turnover, the tribunal found that the difference between turnover declared in income tax returns and GST returns was due to sale of fixed assets, which are treated differently in both systems. The Rs. 5,10,495/- addition was deleted as the difference was properly reconciled through sale of vibrating machine and electric transformers. Second, regarding addition under section 68 for unsecured loans from directors/shareholders, the tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its burden of proof and the revenue failed to bring contrary evidence. The CIT(A)'s confirmation on different grounds without providing opportunity was overturned, with the tribunal noting all loans were repaid. en-us Thu, 17 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Jun 2025 06:47:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772831 ITAT Jaipur allowed the assessee's appeal on two grounds. First, regarding undisclosed turnover, the tribunal found that the difference between turnover declared in income tax returns and GST returns was due to sale of fixed assets, which are treated differently in both systems. The Rs. 5,10,495/- addition was deleted as the difference was properly reconciled through sale of vibrating machine and electric transformers. Second, regarding addition under section 68 for unsecured loans from directors/shareholders, the tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its burden of proof and the revenue failed to bring contrary evidence. The CIT(A)'s confirmation on different grounds without providing opportunity was overturned, with the tribunal noting all loans were repaid. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 17 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772831