{"id":47124,"date":"2024-10-17T12:18:31","date_gmt":"2024-10-17T06:48:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/pcit-v-rashmi-rajiv-mehta-smt-2024-299-taxman-82-delhihc\/"},"modified":"2025-09-05T11:57:03","modified_gmt":"2025-09-05T06:27:03","slug":"pcit-v-rashmi-rajiv-mehta-smt-2024-299-taxman-82-delhihc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/pcit-v-rashmi-rajiv-mehta-smt-2024-299-taxman-82-delhihc\/","title":{"rendered":"PCIT v. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta (Smt.) (2024) 299 Taxman 82 \/(2025) 474 ITR 97   (Delhi)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Assessee is a co-purchaser of a land.\u00a0 Assessing Officer received information in form of a photocopy of an alleged agreement to sell\u00a0 Said photocopy indicated that assessee was a co-purchaser of certain land which was to be purchased for a consideration of Rs. 11 crores and assessee had paid Rs. 2.75 crores as advance for purchase of said land out of which Rs. 1.37 crores was paid in cash. Assessing Officer based on said information issued reopening notice and made addition to income of assessee on account of purchase of said land from undisclosed sources.\u00a0 Tribunal held that\u00a0\u00a0 entire foundation of addition was based on photocopy of alleged agreement to sell and original copy of said document was not seen hence deleted the addition. On appeal Court held that since there was no other evidence to support veracity of recitals made in aforesaid alleged agreement, addition made to income of assessee was unjustified. Order of Tribunal deleting the addition is affirmed. \u00a0(AY. 2010-11)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Photocopy of an alleged agreement to sell-Addition is not justified-Order of Tribunal deleting the addition is affirmed.[S.260A]    <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-47124","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-cg4","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47124","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=47124"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47124\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":56408,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47124\/revisions\/56408"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47124"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=47124"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=47124"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}