https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784786 The dominant issue was whether investment by a non-resident in its Indian subsidiary could be treated as unexplained investment under s.69. The ITAT held that s.69 applies only where investments are not recorded in the assessee's books or the nature/source is not satisfactorily explained; here the investment was duly recorded and supported by bank statements and audited accounts showing funds received as share investment from the foreign parent, with regulatory disclosures corroborating the transaction. Consequently, the ITAT directed the assessee to produce the annual accounts to the AO, who shall verify the stated source and delete the addition if found in order, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Tue, 23 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Jan 2026 09:31:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784786 The dominant issue was whether investment by a non-resident in its Indian subsidiary could be treated as unexplained investment under s.69. The ITAT held that s.69 applies only where investments are not recorded in the assessee's books or the nature/source is not satisfactorily explained; here the investment was duly recorded and supported by bank statements and audited accounts showing funds received as share investment from the foreign parent, with regulatory disclosures corroborating the transaction. Consequently, the ITAT directed the assessee to produce the annual accounts to the AO, who shall verify the stated source and delete the addition if found in order, and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 23 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784786