https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401420 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleted the addition of Rs. 1,73,27,000 as unexplained deposit, and directed the AO to grant exemption under section 54F. The Tribunal held that the assessee had proven the source of deposits, and the absence of ITRs from certain purchasers was not sufficient to sustain the addition. The CIT(A) was directed to allow the exemption after verifying investment details excluding the disputed sale amount. en-us Wed, 02 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Dec 2020 10:37:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401420 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleted the addition of Rs. 1,73,27,000 as unexplained deposit, and directed the AO to grant exemption under section 54F. The Tribunal held that the assessee had proven the source of deposits, and the absence of ITRs from certain purchasers was not sufficient to sustain the addition. The CIT(A) was directed to allow the exemption after verifying investment details excluding the disputed sale amount. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 02 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401420