https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777083 ITAT (Bangalore) held that where no incriminating material seized discloses undisclosed income, AO lacked jurisdiction to proceed under s.153C and the disallowance of farm maintenance expenses was deleted for all years. However, additions under s.69 were upheld for A/Y 2019-20: loose-sheet entries, two RTGS entries accepted by the assessee and corroborative statements indicated cash investments; AO and CIT(A) properly treated unexplained cash payments as unexplained investments. The appeals were allowed insofar as farm expenses; additions under s.69 were sustained. en-us Tue, 05 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Aug 2025 08:31:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777083 ITAT (Bangalore) held that where no incriminating material seized discloses undisclosed income, AO lacked jurisdiction to proceed under s.153C and the disallowance of farm maintenance expenses was deleted for all years. However, additions under s.69 were upheld for A/Y 2019-20: loose-sheet entries, two RTGS entries accepted by the assessee and corroborative statements indicated cash investments; AO and CIT(A) properly treated unexplained cash payments as unexplained investments. The appeals were allowed insofar as farm expenses; additions under s.69 were sustained. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 05 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777083