https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13304 The HC affirmed the ITAT's decisions, holding that for tenancy deposits, proving the tenant's identity and transaction genuineness suffices, negating the need to prove the tenant's capacity. It upheld the ITAT's rejection of the DVO's valuation report, accepting the approved valuer's report instead. An addition of Rs. 40,000 was made for one tenant due to insufficient evidence. The court confirmed that a commission under Section 131(1)(d) is valid only during pending assessment proceedings. The reference was disposed of, affirming ITAT's decisions except for the Rs. 40,000 addition. en-us Tue, 01 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Jun 2024 13:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13304 The HC affirmed the ITAT's decisions, holding that for tenancy deposits, proving the tenant's identity and transaction genuineness suffices, negating the need to prove the tenant's capacity. It upheld the ITAT's rejection of the DVO's valuation report, accepting the approved valuer's report instead. An addition of Rs. 40,000 was made for one tenant due to insufficient evidence. The court confirmed that a commission under Section 131(1)(d) is valid only during pending assessment proceedings. The reference was disposed of, affirming ITAT's decisions except for the Rs. 40,000 addition. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 01 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13304