<?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 (9) TMI 45 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798019</link>
    <description>Cash-deposit additions under Section 69A were considered unsustainable where prior returns, cash-flow statements and statements of affairs established an opening cash balance exceeding the deposits. The disclosed availability of cash supported deletion of the addition. For property acquired below stamp-duty value, an addition under Section 56(2)(x) was considered unsustainable when the purchaser disputed the valuation, substantiated the stated consideration and sought reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer. Proper valuation through that reference was required before determining any valuation-difference addition, resulting in deletion of both additions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2026 08:26:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=920052" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (9) TMI 45 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798019</link>
      <description>Cash-deposit additions under Section 69A were considered unsustainable where prior returns, cash-flow statements and statements of affairs established an opening cash balance exceeding the deposits. The disclosed availability of cash supported deletion of the addition. For property acquired below stamp-duty value, an addition under Section 56(2)(x) was considered unsustainable when the purchaser disputed the valuation, substantiated the stated consideration and sought reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer. Proper valuation through that reference was required before determining any valuation-difference addition, resulting in deletion of both additions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798019</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>