<?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 (9) TMI 449 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798423</link>
    <description>Section 69A requires proof that the assessee owned money or valuable assets not recorded in its books. Third-party loose papers, digital entries and statements alleging over-invoicing and cash kickbacks, without a search, cash seizure, asset, bank trail or other independent evidence linking unaccounted funds to the assessee, do not establish such ownership or receipt. An allegation that a supplier returned cash to a customer is also inconsistent with treating that cash as unexplained money of the supplier. Reliance on customer officials&#039; statements without cross-examination further weakens the charge. The stated addition was therefore legally unsustainable and deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 08:48:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=921170" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (9) TMI 449 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798423</link>
      <description>Section 69A requires proof that the assessee owned money or valuable assets not recorded in its books. Third-party loose papers, digital entries and statements alleging over-invoicing and cash kickbacks, without a search, cash seizure, asset, bank trail or other independent evidence linking unaccounted funds to the assessee, do not establish such ownership or receipt. An allegation that a supplier returned cash to a customer is also inconsistent with treating that cash as unexplained money of the supplier. Reliance on customer officials&#039; statements without cross-examination further weakens the charge. The stated addition was therefore legally unsustainable and deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798423</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>