ITAT Deletes Section 69 Unexplained Investment Addition After Father-in-Law’s ITR Establishes Source of Stamp Duty Payment:
ITAT deleted a Section 69 addition after accepting the assessee’s father-in-law’s ITR as documentary evidence establishing his identity, financial capacity and genuineness of the source.
No Unexplained Investment Addition Can Be Imposed Where Father-in-Law’s Creditworthiness Is Proved
Saloni Kumari
Aug 22, 2026Premium
ITAT Deletes Section 69 Unexplained Investment Addition After Father-in-Law’s ITR Establishes Source of Stamp Duty Payment
ITAT deleted a Section 69 addition after accepting the assessee’s father-in-law’s ITR as documentary evidence establishing his identity, financial capacity and genuineness of the source.
Also Read
ITAT Deletes Rs 42.42 Lakh Tax Additions, Rejects Department’s Accommodation Entry Claim Over Refunded Business AdvancesMere Expense Disallowance Cannot Trigger Section 271(1)(c) Penalty; ITAT Partly Allows AppealITAT Upholds Rs 10 Lakh Addition Under Section 68 as Unexplained Cash Credit Over Failure to Prove Lenders’ CreditworthinessITAT Rules Reassessment Proceedings Invalid After Finding Section 148 Notice Issued Beyond Three Years Without Meeting Rs 50 Lakh Escaped-Income Threshold
About Author
Saloni Kumari
Content Writer
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
StudyCafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
2623My Recent Articles
- Mere Expense Disallowance Cannot Trigger Section 271(1)(c) Penalty; ITAT Partly Allows AppealPremium
- ROC: Company and Directors Faces Penalty for Not Having Any Office at Registered Location of BusinessPremium
- ROC Imposes Penalty on Company and Director for Failure to Furnish Financial Statements for FY 2021-22
- ICSI Seeks Further Extension of CCFS 2026 Beyond August 31 Amid Technical Issues on MCA-21 Portal
- ICSI Submits Follow-Up Representation to MCA, Seeks Resolution of 17 Key Issues to Improve MCA-21 Compliance
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts
All Posts
Recent Posts
All Posts