<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2023 (8) TMI 1544 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458291</link>
    <description>ITAT Kolkata allowed the appeal, deleting additions made under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits and differential stamp duty value. Regarding share capital transactions, the tribunal found 11 shareholders&#039; identity and creditworthiness established with confirmed transactions. For remaining investors including a HUF with Rs. 13.68 lakh income, documentation including cash books, bank statements, and ITRs adequately proved genuine investment from own sources. On property sale, since assessee claimed distress sale below market value and requested departmental valuation which AO refused, no justification existed for addition based on stamp duty differential.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Oct 2024 19:52:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=774410" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (8) TMI 1544 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458291</link>
      <description>ITAT Kolkata allowed the appeal, deleting additions made under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits and differential stamp duty value. Regarding share capital transactions, the tribunal found 11 shareholders&#039; identity and creditworthiness established with confirmed transactions. For remaining investors including a HUF with Rs. 13.68 lakh income, documentation including cash books, bank statements, and ITRs adequately proved genuine investment from own sources. On property sale, since assessee claimed distress sale below market value and requested departmental valuation which AO refused, no justification existed for addition based on stamp duty differential.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458291</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>