https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313684 ITAT Bangalore ruled on two issues. First, regarding addition under section 69 based on seized materials during survey operations, the tribunal held that assessee bears initial burden to prove undisclosed transactions are not income. Since assessee merely denied without credible explanation, AO was justified in making addition of Rs. 183 lakhs. Revenue's appeal allowed. Second, concerning LTCG deduction under section 54G, tribunal found that Whitefield was not a notified urban area per relevant notifications, thus assessee failed to satisfy conditions for deduction. CIT(A)'s relief was reversed and revenue's appeal allowed. en-us Fri, 19 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Apr 2024 18:06:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313684 ITAT Bangalore ruled on two issues. First, regarding addition under section 69 based on seized materials during survey operations, the tribunal held that assessee bears initial burden to prove undisclosed transactions are not income. Since assessee merely denied without credible explanation, AO was justified in making addition of Rs. 183 lakhs. Revenue's appeal allowed. Second, concerning LTCG deduction under section 54G, tribunal found that Whitefield was not a notified urban area per relevant notifications, thus assessee failed to satisfy conditions for deduction. CIT(A)'s relief was reversed and revenue's appeal allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 19 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313684