<?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>2024 (6) TMI 1578 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467866</link>
    <description>Cash deposits in the assessee&#039;s bank account were examined under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with the core question being whether they were unexplained investment or sale proceeds from agricultural land. The explanation was supported by matching deposit dates, a registered sale deed describing the property as agricultural land, its location within municipal limits, and surrounding circumstances pointing to the same transaction. Applying preponderance of probabilities and circumstantial evidence, the explanation was accepted; the purchaser&#039;s denial of higher payment and the registered value alone were insufficient to reject it. The addition under section 69 was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2026 19:31:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=895554" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (6) TMI 1578 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467866</link>
      <description>Cash deposits in the assessee&#039;s bank account were examined under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with the core question being whether they were unexplained investment or sale proceeds from agricultural land. The explanation was supported by matching deposit dates, a registered sale deed describing the property as agricultural land, its location within municipal limits, and surrounding circumstances pointing to the same transaction. Applying preponderance of probabilities and circumstantial evidence, the explanation was accepted; the purchaser&#039;s denial of higher payment and the registered value alone were insufficient to reject it. The addition under section 69 was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467866</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>