https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209200 ITAT (Agra) partly allowed the appeal: AO's ad hoc disallowances were reduced-telephone expense set at 1/7 and car expense at 1/10 (CIT(A) had fixed 1/6 and AO 1/4). The entire ad hoc addition to household expenses was deleted for lack of concrete basis. The tribunal held that LTCG from share sales could not be treated as undisclosed income on mere suspicion or general DDI findings; AO failed to prove purchases were bogus, so recharacterisation to income from other sources was unlawful. en-us Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Sep 2025 13:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209200 ITAT (Agra) partly allowed the appeal: AO's ad hoc disallowances were reduced-telephone expense set at 1/7 and car expense at 1/10 (CIT(A) had fixed 1/6 and AO 1/4). The entire ad hoc addition to household expenses was deleted for lack of concrete basis. The tribunal held that LTCG from share sales could not be treated as undisclosed income on mere suspicion or general DDI findings; AO failed to prove purchases were bogus, so recharacterisation to income from other sources was unlawful. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209200