https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766917 ITAT Mumbai remitted two matters to AO for reconsideration. First, regarding addition under section 69B for immovable property purchase, factual discrepancy existed between loan amount claimed by assessee (Rs. 30,00,000) and amount considered by CIT(A) from ICICI Bank. Second, for addition under section 56(2)(x) where assessee purchased property below stamp duty valuation, CIT(A) failed to consider Third Proviso to section 56(2)(x) despite assessee's request. AO directed to verify loan amount with opportunity for assessee to furnish evidence and refer property valuation to DVO considering Third Proviso provisions. en-us Tue, 04 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Mar 2025 07:35:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766917 ITAT Mumbai remitted two matters to AO for reconsideration. First, regarding addition under section 69B for immovable property purchase, factual discrepancy existed between loan amount claimed by assessee (Rs. 30,00,000) and amount considered by CIT(A) from ICICI Bank. Second, for addition under section 56(2)(x) where assessee purchased property below stamp duty valuation, CIT(A) failed to consider Third Proviso to section 56(2)(x) despite assessee's request. AO directed to verify loan amount with opportunity for assessee to furnish evidence and refer property valuation to DVO considering Third Proviso provisions. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 04 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766917