https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93737 ITAT allowed the appeal: it reversed the AO's additions and directed deletion of the disallowance under s.69C. The Tribunal found the AO and CIT(A) erred in rejecting bona fide improvement expenditures where the assessee produced original bills, payment evidence and corroborative invoices, despite the assessee's name not appearing on some vouchers; the totality of circumstances supported allowance of the cost of improvement. Likewise, commission/brokerage payments to four payees were held to be genuine and claimed in the recipients' returns and confirmations; mere filing after s.133(6) inquiries or familial relationship did not justify disallowance absent contrary evidence. The AO was directed to allow the claimed deductions for computation of capital gains. en-us Fri, 31 Oct 2025 08:23:13 +0530 Fri, 31 Oct 2025 08:23:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93737 ITAT allowed the appeal: it reversed the AO's additions and directed deletion of the disallowance under s.69C. The Tribunal found the AO and CIT(A) erred in rejecting bona fide improvement expenditures where the assessee produced original bills, payment evidence and corroborative invoices, despite the assessee's name not appearing on some vouchers; the totality of circumstances supported allowance of the cost of improvement. Likewise, commission/brokerage payments to four payees were held to be genuine and claimed in the recipients' returns and confirmations; mere filing after s.133(6) inquiries or familial relationship did not justify disallowance absent contrary evidence. The AO was directed to allow the claimed deductions for computation of capital gains. Highlights Income Tax Fri, 31 Oct 2025 08:23:13 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93737