https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791525 A marginal gap of about 6.42% between declared land consideration and a later DVO valuation, without direct or corroborative evidence of any extra cash payment, was treated as an estimation difference insufficient to support an addition for unexplained investment, and the deletion was upheld. For the 80G donation issue, the assessee had claimed only 50% of the donation in the return, so any disallowance had to be confined to the amount actually claimed and could not exceed that figure; the restricted disallowance was therefore sustained. The Revenue's challenge to both additions failed and the appellate order was upheld. en-us Fri, 24 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 May 2026 08:36:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791525 A marginal gap of about 6.42% between declared land consideration and a later DVO valuation, without direct or corroborative evidence of any extra cash payment, was treated as an estimation difference insufficient to support an addition for unexplained investment, and the deletion was upheld. For the 80G donation issue, the assessee had claimed only 50% of the donation in the return, so any disallowance had to be confined to the amount actually claimed and could not exceed that figure; the restricted disallowance was therefore sustained. The Revenue's challenge to both additions failed and the appellate order was upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 24 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791525