https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430165 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 8,75,31,250 as unexplained investment in property for A.Y. 2016-17. The Tribunal found that the revenue failed to prove the higher transaction value alleged and noted the seller's acceptance of the lower sale consideration in their assessment order. Emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee due to the lack of substantiation for the addition based on discrepancies in transaction values. en-us Fri, 11 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:15:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430165 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 8,75,31,250 as unexplained investment in property for A.Y. 2016-17. The Tribunal found that the revenue failed to prove the higher transaction value alleged and noted the seller's acceptance of the lower sale consideration in their assessment order. Emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee due to the lack of substantiation for the addition based on discrepancies in transaction values. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 11 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430165