<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (2) TMI 1201 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462414</link>
    <description>ITAT Pune dismissed revenue&#039;s appeal in a case involving multiple additions under various sections. CIT(A) had deleted additions under sections 56(2)(x) and 50CA regarding difference between transaction value and fair market value of shares, finding the land was undeveloped industrial NA land valued per stamp duty authority rules. CIT(A) also deleted additions for alleged on-money receipts based on seized documents, unexplained investments in bungalow construction considering family members&#039; contributions, cash expenditure under section 69C paid by assessee&#039;s wife, and disallowance of agricultural income. ITAT upheld CIT(A)&#039;s detailed reasoned orders, finding no contrary material presented by revenue to challenge the deletions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2025 19:58:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=830576" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 1201 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462414</link>
      <description>ITAT Pune dismissed revenue&#039;s appeal in a case involving multiple additions under various sections. CIT(A) had deleted additions under sections 56(2)(x) and 50CA regarding difference between transaction value and fair market value of shares, finding the land was undeveloped industrial NA land valued per stamp duty authority rules. CIT(A) also deleted additions for alleged on-money receipts based on seized documents, unexplained investments in bungalow construction considering family members&#039; contributions, cash expenditure under section 69C paid by assessee&#039;s wife, and disallowance of agricultural income. ITAT upheld CIT(A)&#039;s detailed reasoned orders, finding no contrary material presented by revenue to challenge the deletions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462414</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>