https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776694 The ITAT Mumbai held that the property was purchased by the assessee's husband from his own income and a loan, with the assessee named as a second owner without contributing financially. The tribunal found merit in the revenue's contention that the CIT(A) granted relief without allowing the AO to examine additional evidence under section 46A(3). Consequently, the matter was remitted to the AO for reconsideration of the documents submitted before the CIT(A). The revenue's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. en-us Tue, 07 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Aug 2025 10:11:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776694 The ITAT Mumbai held that the property was purchased by the assessee's husband from his own income and a loan, with the assessee named as a second owner without contributing financially. The tribunal found merit in the revenue's contention that the CIT(A) granted relief without allowing the AO to examine additional evidence under section 46A(3). Consequently, the matter was remitted to the AO for reconsideration of the documents submitted before the CIT(A). The revenue's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 07 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776694