<?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 (12) TMI 481 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782941</link>
    <description>The ITAT Chandigarh deleted the addition u/s 68 made on an outstanding credit in the name of a corporate creditor, holding that the AO&#039;s reliance on a clerical spelling variation in the ledger was untenable. The Tribunal found the creditor&#039;s identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction duly established through PAN, ROC/MCA records, audited financials, confirmations and a complete banking trail, including subsequent repayment via account payee cheques to the same bank account. It held that non-materialisation of an intended sale and non-compliance with summons u/s 131 could not, in the face of unimpeached documentary evidence, justify treating the credit as unexplained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Dec 2025 08:46:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=869655" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 481 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782941</link>
      <description>The ITAT Chandigarh deleted the addition u/s 68 made on an outstanding credit in the name of a corporate creditor, holding that the AO&#039;s reliance on a clerical spelling variation in the ledger was untenable. The Tribunal found the creditor&#039;s identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction duly established through PAN, ROC/MCA records, audited financials, confirmations and a complete banking trail, including subsequent repayment via account payee cheques to the same bank account. It held that non-materialisation of an intended sale and non-compliance with summons u/s 131 could not, in the face of unimpeached documentary evidence, justify treating the credit as unexplained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782941</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>