https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34606 The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal challenging the deletion of an addition of Rs. 10,84,835 made by the Assessing Officer. The Court emphasized that the Stamp Valuation Authority's rates do not solely determine the actual price paid for a property. Relying on legal precedents, the Court held that the burden is on the Department to prove undervaluation with substantial evidence beyond stamp duty rates. As such evidence was lacking, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, highlighting the importance of factual evidence in determining undisclosed income during the block period. en-us Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34606 The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal challenging the deletion of an addition of Rs. 10,84,835 made by the Assessing Officer. The Court emphasized that the Stamp Valuation Authority's rates do not solely determine the actual price paid for a property. Relying on legal precedents, the Court held that the burden is on the Department to prove undervaluation with substantial evidence beyond stamp duty rates. As such evidence was lacking, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, highlighting the importance of factual evidence in determining undisclosed income during the block period. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34606