<?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 (7) TMI 1078 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795192</link>
    <description>Unauthenticated loose sheets seized from a third party cannot, without cogent independent corroboration, establish understatement of sale consideration or unexplained investment. Registered sale-deed terms, banking records and tax deduction records supported the disclosed consideration, while the loose sheet lacked signatures, a verified author and date, and status as a regular accounting record. Material discrepancies between its cheque details and consideration figures and the documented transaction further undermined reliability. In the absence of seller enquiries, evidence of receipt of additional consideration or a cash trail, suspicion could not replace proof; the unexplained-investment addition was therefore deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2026 08:27:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=912340" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 1078 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795192</link>
      <description>Unauthenticated loose sheets seized from a third party cannot, without cogent independent corroboration, establish understatement of sale consideration or unexplained investment. Registered sale-deed terms, banking records and tax deduction records supported the disclosed consideration, while the loose sheet lacked signatures, a verified author and date, and status as a regular accounting record. Material discrepancies between its cheque details and consideration figures and the documented transaction further undermined reliability. In the absence of seller enquiries, evidence of receipt of additional consideration or a cash trail, suspicion could not replace proof; the unexplained-investment addition was therefore deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795192</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>