https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764223 ITAT Ahmedabad ruled in favor of the assessee on multiple grounds. The tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to indexed cost of acquisition benefit while computing long-term capital gains, as the AO had added total sale consideration without allowing indexed cost deduction. Additions under sections 68 and 69 for unexplained investments in immovable property were deleted, as the assessee adequately proved the source of funds through loan documentation, party details, and supporting evidence. The tribunal also upheld CIT(A)'s decision regarding unexplained sundry creditors, finding the assessee had sufficiently established genuineness and creditworthiness of lenders through comprehensive documentation including PAN numbers, confirmations, bank statements, and ITR-V forms. en-us Fri, 03 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Jan 2025 08:42:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764223 ITAT Ahmedabad ruled in favor of the assessee on multiple grounds. The tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to indexed cost of acquisition benefit while computing long-term capital gains, as the AO had added total sale consideration without allowing indexed cost deduction. Additions under sections 68 and 69 for unexplained investments in immovable property were deleted, as the assessee adequately proved the source of funds through loan documentation, party details, and supporting evidence. The tribunal also upheld CIT(A)'s decision regarding unexplained sundry creditors, finding the assessee had sufficiently established genuineness and creditworthiness of lenders through comprehensive documentation including PAN numbers, confirmations, bank statements, and ITR-V forms. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 03 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764223