https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470696 Documentary bank evidence established the source of part of the residential-property investment and disproved an alleged term deposit, requiring deletion of those additions while retaining the unexplained difference between declared consideration and stamp-duty value. A cash-funded cost of improvement was not allowable because its source was not credibly established, so consequential indexation was also denied. Investment in a new residential house within the prescribed period qualified for capital-gains deduction under Section 54. The jurisdictional objection to reassessment was rejected. Taxable income was to be recomputed by retaining only the unexplained property-value differential and allowing the residential-house reinvestment deduction. en-us Wed, 26 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Aug 2026 20:51:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470696 Documentary bank evidence established the source of part of the residential-property investment and disproved an alleged term deposit, requiring deletion of those additions while retaining the unexplained difference between declared consideration and stamp-duty value. A cash-funded cost of improvement was not allowable because its source was not credibly established, so consequential indexation was also denied. Investment in a new residential house within the prescribed period qualified for capital-gains deduction under Section 54. The jurisdictional objection to reassessment was rejected. Taxable income was to be recomputed by retaining only the unexplained property-value differential and allowing the residential-house reinvestment deduction. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 26 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470696