https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782434 ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal of the assessee. Addition u/s 69 based on an excel sheet seized from a third party was deleted, as the document was uncorroborated, contained an incorrect seller's name, and merely mentioned the assessee's name without independent evidence of on-money payment. Denial of cross-examination of the alleged broker further vitiated the assessment. The Tribunal also deleted addition of Rs. 1,56,00,000/- made u/s 56, holding that the receipts arose from transfer of a capital asset and were properly taxable under "Capital gains." Consequently, exemption claims u/ss 54 and 54EC were allowed, as investments and their funding stood fully explained and undisputed. en-us Tue, 25 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 29 Nov 2025 07:57:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782434 ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal of the assessee. Addition u/s 69 based on an excel sheet seized from a third party was deleted, as the document was uncorroborated, contained an incorrect seller's name, and merely mentioned the assessee's name without independent evidence of on-money payment. Denial of cross-examination of the alleged broker further vitiated the assessment. The Tribunal also deleted addition of Rs. 1,56,00,000/- made u/s 56, holding that the receipts arose from transfer of a capital asset and were properly taxable under "Capital gains." Consequently, exemption claims u/ss 54 and 54EC were allowed, as investments and their funding stood fully explained and undisputed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 25 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782434