https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208268 The ITAT confirmed the deletion of substantial additions for undisclosed investments in both cases. However, in the case of Shaileshkumar, the addition of Rs.1.48 lacs was also deleted. The ITAT found that the A O's additions were based on presumptions without concrete evidence, and the seized documents did not support these assumptions. Departmental appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's cross objection was allowed. en-us Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 May 2013 14:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208268 The ITAT confirmed the deletion of substantial additions for undisclosed investments in both cases. However, in the case of Shaileshkumar, the addition of Rs.1.48 lacs was also deleted. The ITAT found that the A O's additions were based on presumptions without concrete evidence, and the seized documents did not support these assumptions. Departmental appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's cross objection was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208268