https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312742 ITAT Kolkata ruled in favor of the assessee on multiple grounds. The tribunal held that advances received in preceding years for property sales cannot be treated as unexplained under Section 68 as they appeared as opening balance and were supported by conveyance deeds. Regarding suppressed sales, the tribunal found that actual transactions occurred in preceding years with proper documentation through banking channels, making Section 43CA inapplicable since properties were stock-in-trade, not capital assets. For unexplained investment in property purchase, the tribunal noted the transaction was disclosed through banking channels and no statutory provision existed in AY 2014-15 for additions based on fair market value differences, as Section 56(2)(x)(b) became effective only from 2017-18. en-us Wed, 08 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Mar 2024 08:58:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312742 ITAT Kolkata ruled in favor of the assessee on multiple grounds. The tribunal held that advances received in preceding years for property sales cannot be treated as unexplained under Section 68 as they appeared as opening balance and were supported by conveyance deeds. Regarding suppressed sales, the tribunal found that actual transactions occurred in preceding years with proper documentation through banking channels, making Section 43CA inapplicable since properties were stock-in-trade, not capital assets. For unexplained investment in property purchase, the tribunal noted the transaction was disclosed through banking channels and no statutory provision existed in AY 2014-15 for additions based on fair market value differences, as Section 56(2)(x)(b) became effective only from 2017-18. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 08 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312742