https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754810 ITAT DELHI dismissed Revenue's appeal in two matters. First, regarding addition under Section 37(1), the assessee claimed Rs. 12.25 Crs as revenue loss after property purchase agreement forfeiture following payment default. CIT(A) allowed the claim as business loss during contract execution. ITAT upheld this decision, finding no reason to disturb CIT(A)'s detailed findings. Second, concerning non-referral to DVO under Section 43CA, assessee sold property for Rs. 17.93 Crs against stamp valuation of Rs. 19.73 Crs. Despite assessee's specific objections, AO failed to refer matter to DVO. ITAT deleted the addition, dismissing Revenue's reliance on Mumbai ITAT decision as outside jurisdiction. en-us Wed, 26 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Jun 2024 11:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754810 ITAT DELHI dismissed Revenue's appeal in two matters. First, regarding addition under Section 37(1), the assessee claimed Rs. 12.25 Crs as revenue loss after property purchase agreement forfeiture following payment default. CIT(A) allowed the claim as business loss during contract execution. ITAT upheld this decision, finding no reason to disturb CIT(A)'s detailed findings. Second, concerning non-referral to DVO under Section 43CA, assessee sold property for Rs. 17.93 Crs against stamp valuation of Rs. 19.73 Crs. Despite assessee's specific objections, AO failed to refer matter to DVO. ITAT deleted the addition, dismissing Revenue's reliance on Mumbai ITAT decision as outside jurisdiction. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 26 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754810