<?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 (6) TMI 859 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793478</link>
    <description>An addition under section 68 for unsecured loans was deleted where the assessee produced lender confirmations, income-tax particulars, bank statements and audited financials, and the loans were repaid through banking channels. General search material and a broad allegation that the lenders were accommodation-entry providers were held insufficient without independent enquiry or direct evidence linking the assessee&#039;s specific credits to a sham transaction. The Revenue failed to rebut the documentary evidence or show that the impugned loans were non-genuine, so the deletion of the addition was upheld and the matter was decided against the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2026 15:59:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=907367" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 859 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793478</link>
      <description>An addition under section 68 for unsecured loans was deleted where the assessee produced lender confirmations, income-tax particulars, bank statements and audited financials, and the loans were repaid through banking channels. General search material and a broad allegation that the lenders were accommodation-entry providers were held insufficient without independent enquiry or direct evidence linking the assessee&#039;s specific credits to a sham transaction. The Revenue failed to rebut the documentary evidence or show that the impugned loans were non-genuine, so the deletion of the addition was upheld and the matter was decided against the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793478</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>