https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781823 ITAT Mumbai allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the addition made under s.68 on account of loans from three lender entities. It held that the assessee had discharged the onus by furnishing corroborative evidence and explanations regarding the loan transactions, and no deficiency or discrepancy was pointed out by the AO or CIT(A). The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s approach inconsistent, as relief was granted for similar loans from three other parties on the same facts. Applying its earlier reasoning mutatis mutandis, the ITAT directed deletion of the sustained additions. en-us Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Nov 2025 17:42:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781823 ITAT Mumbai allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the addition made under s.68 on account of loans from three lender entities. It held that the assessee had discharged the onus by furnishing corroborative evidence and explanations regarding the loan transactions, and no deficiency or discrepancy was pointed out by the AO or CIT(A). The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s approach inconsistent, as relief was granted for similar loans from three other parties on the same facts. Applying its earlier reasoning mutatis mutandis, the ITAT directed deletion of the sustained additions. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781823