https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770590 ITAT Jaipur allowed the assessee's appeal on multiple grounds. The tribunal deleted additions for on-money paid for flat purchase, finding insufficient evidence that the assessee paid money while vacating property. It removed additions for advances given, ruling the AO wrongly invoked section 69 when source was documented in seized diary and cash flow statement. For land investment additions, the matter was remanded to AO for fresh consideration with proper opportunity to the assessee. The tribunal also deleted estimated undisclosed interest income additions, finding no supporting material in seized records to justify such additions. en-us Tue, 11 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 May 2025 10:36:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770590 ITAT Jaipur allowed the assessee's appeal on multiple grounds. The tribunal deleted additions for on-money paid for flat purchase, finding insufficient evidence that the assessee paid money while vacating property. It removed additions for advances given, ruling the AO wrongly invoked section 69 when source was documented in seized diary and cash flow statement. For land investment additions, the matter was remanded to AO for fresh consideration with proper opportunity to the assessee. The tribunal also deleted estimated undisclosed interest income additions, finding no supporting material in seized records to justify such additions. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 11 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770590