https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776980 ITAT (Chennai) deleted the adhoc disallowance under s.40A(3), finding no requirement for a separate 40A(3) disallowance where the AO had rejected books and estimated income and that rejection was not disturbed. Additions under s.69A for unexplained investment in immovable property were set aside and remitted to the AO for de novo assessment because the AO had not been given opportunity to verify a newly produced bank-loan explanation. The assessee must file explanations and supporting documents; the AO is to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law. en-us Wed, 08 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Aug 2025 08:33:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776980 ITAT (Chennai) deleted the adhoc disallowance under s.40A(3), finding no requirement for a separate 40A(3) disallowance where the AO had rejected books and estimated income and that rejection was not disturbed. Additions under s.69A for unexplained investment in immovable property were set aside and remitted to the AO for de novo assessment because the AO had not been given opportunity to verify a newly produced bank-loan explanation. The assessee must file explanations and supporting documents; the AO is to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 08 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776980