https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766432 An alleged on-money addition could not be sustained where the residential purchase was shown to be funded through a bank loan and remittances received through banking channels, and the Revenue failed to prove any undisclosed source of income in India. The mere difference between the registered value and the total consideration was insufficient to treat the amount as unexplained payment when supported by documentary evidence. A further addition made in the final assessment order pursuant to Dispute Resolution Panel directions was also deleted because section 144C did not permit post-direction verification beyond the panel's jurisdiction. Both additions were deleted. en-us Fri, 21 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Feb 2025 08:24:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766432 An alleged on-money addition could not be sustained where the residential purchase was shown to be funded through a bank loan and remittances received through banking channels, and the Revenue failed to prove any undisclosed source of income in India. The mere difference between the registered value and the total consideration was insufficient to treat the amount as unexplained payment when supported by documentary evidence. A further addition made in the final assessment order pursuant to Dispute Resolution Panel directions was also deleted because section 144C did not permit post-direction verification beyond the panel's jurisdiction. Both additions were deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 21 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766432