https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793598 The note discusses an ITAT Hyderabad decision on reassessment, unexplained cash deposits, capital gains computation, and related penalties. Reassessment was upheld because the earlier proceedings had been dropped and the assessee had participated in the reassessment without timely objection, so the service challenge failed under section 292BB. Cash deposits were not treated as unexplained money where prior withdrawals from the same account were not shown to have been diverted or spent, so the addition under section 69A was deleted. The cost-of-improvement claim for long-term capital gains was remanded for factual verification because the sale and purchase deeds suggested possible construction but the supporting material required scrutiny. Penalties linked to the deleted and remanded additions were vacated, while the remaining penalty was sustained. en-us Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Jun 2026 08:24:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793598 The note discusses an ITAT Hyderabad decision on reassessment, unexplained cash deposits, capital gains computation, and related penalties. Reassessment was upheld because the earlier proceedings had been dropped and the assessee had participated in the reassessment without timely objection, so the service challenge failed under section 292BB. Cash deposits were not treated as unexplained money where prior withdrawals from the same account were not shown to have been diverted or spent, so the addition under section 69A was deleted. The cost-of-improvement claim for long-term capital gains was remanded for factual verification because the sale and purchase deeds suggested possible construction but the supporting material required scrutiny. Penalties linked to the deleted and remanded additions were vacated, while the remaining penalty was sustained. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793598