https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210068 The High Court upheld the decisions of the CIT(A) and ITAT, dismissing the Revenue's challenge under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The court found no substantial question of law and affirmed the admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A. The modification of the original agreement by the parties justified the additional security provided by the assessee, leading to the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of long-term capital gain. en-us Tue, 24 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Jun 2013 17:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210068 The High Court upheld the decisions of the CIT(A) and ITAT, dismissing the Revenue's challenge under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The court found no substantial question of law and affirmed the admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A. The modification of the original agreement by the parties justified the additional security provided by the assessee, leading to the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of long-term capital gain. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 24 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210068