<?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>2026 (4) TMI 258 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789189</link>
    <description>Unsecured loan additions under section 68 were deleted where the assessee produced confirmations, declarations, ledger extracts and other material showing the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the two lenders. One creditor&#039;s disputed sum largely related to an opening balance and transactions routed through family members or as advances against gem stones, with part of the dealings already accepted by the Revenue in the same and later years. The other creditor was shown to reside and carry on business in Bahrain, with lending activity before and after the year, bank transfers, and supporting correspondence. The absence of complete bank statements did not justify the addition because the assessee had discharged the initial burden and the Revenue brought no cogent adverse evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2026 08:53:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=894970" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 258 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789189</link>
      <description>Unsecured loan additions under section 68 were deleted where the assessee produced confirmations, declarations, ledger extracts and other material showing the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the two lenders. One creditor&#039;s disputed sum largely related to an opening balance and transactions routed through family members or as advances against gem stones, with part of the dealings already accepted by the Revenue in the same and later years. The other creditor was shown to reside and carry on business in Bahrain, with lending activity before and after the year, bank transfers, and supporting correspondence. The absence of complete bank statements did not justify the addition because the assessee had discharged the initial burden and the Revenue brought no cogent adverse evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789189</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>