https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765493 ITAT Kolkata allowed the appeal, deleting additions made under sections 69 and 56(2)(x). The tribunal found that unexplained investment addition under section 69 was incorrect as all payments were made through banking channels from FY 2012-13 to AY 2018-19, with complete documentation available to AO. Addition under section 56(2)(x) for difference between stamp valuation and purchase consideration was also deleted since the provision was inserted by Finance Act 2017 effective from 01.04.2017, while the property was purchased in AY 2013-14. The tribunal emphasized that new charging provisions apply prospectively, not retrospectively. en-us Wed, 29 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Feb 2025 08:41:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765493 ITAT Kolkata allowed the appeal, deleting additions made under sections 69 and 56(2)(x). The tribunal found that unexplained investment addition under section 69 was incorrect as all payments were made through banking channels from FY 2012-13 to AY 2018-19, with complete documentation available to AO. Addition under section 56(2)(x) for difference between stamp valuation and purchase consideration was also deleted since the provision was inserted by Finance Act 2017 effective from 01.04.2017, while the property was purchased in AY 2013-14. The tribunal emphasized that new charging provisions apply prospectively, not retrospectively. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 29 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765493