<?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>Unsecured loan and group cash-in-hand entries u/s68/s.69A: additions deleted; double disallowance u/s37(1) rejected.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95765</link>
    <description>On addition under s.68 r.w.s. 115BBE for an unsecured loan, the tribunal held that the loan stood established as genuine on parity with an earlier decision involving identical facts and allegations, and therefore deleted the addition. On addition under s.69A r.w.s. 115BBE for cash-in-hand treated as unexplained, it held that the cash was duly recorded in the books of multiple group entities and the source was thus explained; the deletion by the first appellate authority was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s ground was dismissed. On disallowance under s.37(1), it held that the AO made a double addition despite the assessee&#039;s own disallowance in computation; the deletion was sustained. - ITAT</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2026 08:47:38 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2026 08:48:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=876085" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Unsecured loan and group cash-in-hand entries u/s68/s.69A: additions deleted; double disallowance u/s37(1) rejected.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95765</link>
      <description>On addition under s.68 r.w.s. 115BBE for an unsecured loan, the tribunal held that the loan stood established as genuine on parity with an earlier decision involving identical facts and allegations, and therefore deleted the addition. On addition under s.69A r.w.s. 115BBE for cash-in-hand treated as unexplained, it held that the cash was duly recorded in the books of multiple group entities and the source was thus explained; the deletion by the first appellate authority was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s ground was dismissed. On disallowance under s.37(1), it held that the AO made a double addition despite the assessee&#039;s own disallowance in computation; the deletion was sustained. - ITAT</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2026 08:47:38 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95765</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>