https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469934 The Revenue's appeal was held not maintainable because the tax effect was below the CBDT monetary limit and no exception applied, so it was dismissed. On merits, the addition of unsecured loans under section 68 was deleted because the assessee produced confirmations, returns, bank statements, audited accounts and banking trail evidence, while the Revenue brought no independent material to show the loans were sham. The linked interest disallowance also failed once the section 68 addition did not survive. The addition for alleged bogus purchases was likewise deleted, the purchases being supported by documents, banking payments and stock register entries, with no contrary material from the Revenue. en-us Tue, 11 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Jul 2026 20:20:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469934 The Revenue's appeal was held not maintainable because the tax effect was below the CBDT monetary limit and no exception applied, so it was dismissed. On merits, the addition of unsecured loans under section 68 was deleted because the assessee produced confirmations, returns, bank statements, audited accounts and banking trail evidence, while the Revenue brought no independent material to show the loans were sham. The linked interest disallowance also failed once the section 68 addition did not survive. The addition for alleged bogus purchases was likewise deleted, the purchases being supported by documents, banking payments and stock register entries, with no contrary material from the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 11 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469934