<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (10) TMI 40 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779244</link>
    <description>ITAT upheld the AO&#039;s addition under s.69 for unexplained bank credits totaling Rs.5,15,000, finding the assessee failed to prove their nature and source. However, the Tribunal held a Rs.4,55,000 credit was a reversal of stamp duty supported by earlier bank credit and directed the AO to delete the addition in respect of that amount. The appeal was therefore partly allowed, sustaining the addition for Rs.5,15,000 and deleting the addition for Rs.4,55,000.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2025 09:07:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=855610" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 40 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779244</link>
      <description>ITAT upheld the AO&#039;s addition under s.69 for unexplained bank credits totaling Rs.5,15,000, finding the assessee failed to prove their nature and source. However, the Tribunal held a Rs.4,55,000 credit was a reversal of stamp duty supported by earlier bank credit and directed the AO to delete the addition in respect of that amount. The appeal was therefore partly allowed, sustaining the addition for Rs.5,15,000 and deleting the addition for Rs.4,55,000.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779244</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>