https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263163 The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition under section 69B. It emphasized that for such additions, there must be positive evidence of investments exceeding recorded amounts, and mere presumption by the Assessing Officer is insufficient. The Tribunal highlighted the burden of proof on the Revenue to establish understatement of consideration and clarified the limitations of deeming provisions like section 50C and section 69B. It also noted that section 56(2)(vii) introduced in 2009 cannot be applied retrospectively to transactions before that date. en-us Mon, 16 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Mar 2026 14:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263163 The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition under section 69B. It emphasized that for such additions, there must be positive evidence of investments exceeding recorded amounts, and mere presumption by the Assessing Officer is insufficient. The Tribunal highlighted the burden of proof on the Revenue to establish understatement of consideration and clarified the limitations of deeming provisions like section 50C and section 69B. It also noted that section 56(2)(vii) introduced in 2009 cannot be applied retrospectively to transactions before that date. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 16 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263163