https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119777 The Tribunal dismissed both the Department's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 10,00,000 from the assessment. The Tribunal found that the money was received by Kamal Singh for election expenses and not personally by the assessee. It concluded that the burden to prove the receipt as income was on the Department, which was not met, and that the receipt did not constitute income as it did not result in personal gain or advantage for the assessee. en-us Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:00:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119777 The Tribunal dismissed both the Department's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 10,00,000 from the assessment. The Tribunal found that the money was received by Kamal Singh for election expenses and not personally by the assessee. It concluded that the burden to prove the receipt as income was on the Department, which was not met, and that the receipt did not constitute income as it did not result in personal gain or advantage for the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119777