https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781354 Delhi HC allowed the assessee's appeal, upholding CIT(A) and ITAT findings that an unsecured loan need not be treated as income under s.68. Court held the creditor's identity and creditworthiness were proved by bank records, creditor's statements and repayment with interest, and the loan routed through banking channels. As the year in question predates the 2022 Finance Act amendment, the Revenue could not require proof of the "source of the source." Although the ITAT erred on a procedural point under s.153A, on merits the loan was genuine and additions were deleted. en-us Thu, 13 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Nov 2025 18:20:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781354 Delhi HC allowed the assessee's appeal, upholding CIT(A) and ITAT findings that an unsecured loan need not be treated as income under s.68. Court held the creditor's identity and creditworthiness were proved by bank records, creditor's statements and repayment with interest, and the loan routed through banking channels. As the year in question predates the 2022 Finance Act amendment, the Revenue could not require proof of the "source of the source." Although the ITAT erred on a procedural point under s.153A, on merits the loan was genuine and additions were deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 13 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781354