<?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>2024 (11) TMI 1560 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465376</link>
    <description>Additions u/s 69 for alleged unaccounted cash paid for purchase of multiple shops were unsustainable because income must be assessed in the hands of the actual investor; the record showed the assessee purchased only one shop, other shops were bought by separately assessed persons, and there was no proof that the assessee funded their payments, so deletion of those additions for the two years was upheld. For unabated AYs, additions in s.153A assessments could be made only on the basis of incriminating material found from the assessee; since the cash-payment material was found with third parties and s.153C was not invoked, the additions failed. An addition based on third-party statements was also quashed for lack of corroboration and denial of cross-examination, violating natural justice. The stock-shortage addition, being presumptive and based on unclear book-stock computation, was remanded for fresh examination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2025 18:13:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=872638" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (11) TMI 1560 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465376</link>
      <description>Additions u/s 69 for alleged unaccounted cash paid for purchase of multiple shops were unsustainable because income must be assessed in the hands of the actual investor; the record showed the assessee purchased only one shop, other shops were bought by separately assessed persons, and there was no proof that the assessee funded their payments, so deletion of those additions for the two years was upheld. For unabated AYs, additions in s.153A assessments could be made only on the basis of incriminating material found from the assessee; since the cash-payment material was found with third parties and s.153C was not invoked, the additions failed. An addition based on third-party statements was also quashed for lack of corroboration and denial of cross-examination, violating natural justice. The stock-shortage addition, being presumptive and based on unclear book-stock computation, was remanded for fresh examination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465376</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>