<?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 (6) TMI 736 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793355</link>
    <description>An addition for unexplained investment under section 69 was treated as unsustainable where the assessee produced a complete documentary trail for the property purchase, including the earlier sale deed, bank records, affidavit, gift deed, identity and tax documents, bank confirmation and pay order. The analysis states that the Revenue did not dispute the genuineness of the transaction, the contributor&#039;s identity or capacity, or the receipt of funds by the seller, and offered no contrary material showing undisclosed income. On that basis, the text says the investment stood satisfactorily explained and the addition was deleted; the absence of one collateral remittance record was not enough to reject otherwise corroborated evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Jun 2026 08:36:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=906763" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 736 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793355</link>
      <description>An addition for unexplained investment under section 69 was treated as unsustainable where the assessee produced a complete documentary trail for the property purchase, including the earlier sale deed, bank records, affidavit, gift deed, identity and tax documents, bank confirmation and pay order. The analysis states that the Revenue did not dispute the genuineness of the transaction, the contributor&#039;s identity or capacity, or the receipt of funds by the seller, and offered no contrary material showing undisclosed income. On that basis, the text says the investment stood satisfactorily explained and the addition was deleted; the absence of one collateral remittance record was not enough to reject otherwise corroborated evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793355</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>