<?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>2026 (4) TMI 389 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789320</link>
    <description>Cash deposits supported by a cash book, monthly cash summary and brokerage income explanation could not be treated as unexplained money under section 69A, because the books were not validly rejected and no contrary material showed another source. Property investment was also accepted as explained under section 69, since loan confirmations, banking entries and evidence of lender creditworthiness supported the purchase and no rebuttal evidence was produced. The assessee&#039;s short-term capital gain computation was upheld on the basis of the purchase deed and consent agreement, as the record supported the worked-out cost and share and the Revenue failed to substantiate a higher addition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2026 07:48:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=895400" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 389 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789320</link>
      <description>Cash deposits supported by a cash book, monthly cash summary and brokerage income explanation could not be treated as unexplained money under section 69A, because the books were not validly rejected and no contrary material showed another source. Property investment was also accepted as explained under section 69, since loan confirmations, banking entries and evidence of lender creditworthiness supported the purchase and no rebuttal evidence was produced. The assessee&#039;s short-term capital gain computation was upheld on the basis of the purchase deed and consent agreement, as the record supported the worked-out cost and share and the Revenue failed to substantiate a higher addition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789320</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>