https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762975 ITAT Ahmedabad remanded the matter to AO for correct property valuation as on 01.04.1981 through DVO referral, finding AO's suo moto valuation at Rs.6.20/sq.mtr incorrect compared to assessee's conservative Rs.70/sq.mtr rate. Section 54F deduction was denied as no residential house existed on purchased land, only open structure warranting proportionate deduction. Investment date for new property was accepted as 26.07.2017 based on agreement execution and payment, not registration date. Cash deposit addition was partially allowed - Rs.15.48 lakhs explained through agricultural income and opening balance, but Rs.9 lakhs confirmed as unexplained deposits during demonetization period. en-us Fri, 29 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Dec 2024 13:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762975 ITAT Ahmedabad remanded the matter to AO for correct property valuation as on 01.04.1981 through DVO referral, finding AO's suo moto valuation at Rs.6.20/sq.mtr incorrect compared to assessee's conservative Rs.70/sq.mtr rate. Section 54F deduction was denied as no residential house existed on purchased land, only open structure warranting proportionate deduction. Investment date for new property was accepted as 26.07.2017 based on agreement execution and payment, not registration date. Cash deposit addition was partially allowed - Rs.15.48 lakhs explained through agricultural income and opening balance, but Rs.9 lakhs confirmed as unexplained deposits during demonetization period. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 29 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762975