<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (12) TMI 1757 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784217</link>
    <description>Deletion of addition under s. 69A turned on whether cash deposits were &quot;unexplained.&quot; The Tribunal held the assessee furnished verifiable documents establishing a one-to-one correlation between stamp-paper sales, daily cash collections, bank deposits, and remittances to the treasury, and the Revenue produced no material to discredit these records or show an alternative source; as the assessee functioned as an agent earning only commission, the collections could not be treated as his unexplained income. The s. 69A addition was directed to be deleted. On deduction of housing-loan interest under s. 24(b), the Tribunal held the appellate authority erred in refusing to adjudicate a statutory claim on merits; the issue was remitted to the AO for fresh verification and decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2025 09:17:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=874929" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 1757 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784217</link>
      <description>Deletion of addition under s. 69A turned on whether cash deposits were &quot;unexplained.&quot; The Tribunal held the assessee furnished verifiable documents establishing a one-to-one correlation between stamp-paper sales, daily cash collections, bank deposits, and remittances to the treasury, and the Revenue produced no material to discredit these records or show an alternative source; as the assessee functioned as an agent earning only commission, the collections could not be treated as his unexplained income. The s. 69A addition was directed to be deleted. On deduction of housing-loan interest under s. 24(b), the Tribunal held the appellate authority erred in refusing to adjudicate a statutory claim on merits; the issue was remitted to the AO for fresh verification and decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784217</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>