https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784480 Addition under s.68 r/w s.115BBE for an unsecured loan was examined on the touchstone of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. As the AO's objections mirrored those rejected in an earlier co-ordinate bench decision on identical facts concerning the same lender, the loan was treated as genuine; the s.68 addition was deleted. Addition under s.69A r/w s.115BBE for cash-in-hand was unsustainable because the cash was duly recorded in the books of multiple group concerns, evidencing an explained source; deletion by CIT(A) was upheld. Disallowance under s.37(1) was held to be a double addition since the assessee had already disallowed the amount in computation and the AO added it again; the disallowance was deleted and the Revenue's appeal dismissed. en-us Fri, 28 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Jan 2026 16:11:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784480 Addition under s.68 r/w s.115BBE for an unsecured loan was examined on the touchstone of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. As the AO's objections mirrored those rejected in an earlier co-ordinate bench decision on identical facts concerning the same lender, the loan was treated as genuine; the s.68 addition was deleted. Addition under s.69A r/w s.115BBE for cash-in-hand was unsustainable because the cash was duly recorded in the books of multiple group concerns, evidencing an explained source; deletion by CIT(A) was upheld. Disallowance under s.37(1) was held to be a double addition since the assessee had already disallowed the amount in computation and the AO added it again; the disallowance was deleted and the Revenue's appeal dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 28 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784480