https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178322 The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT (A)'s deletion of the addition of Rs. 11,70,56,000 to the assessee's income. The Tribunal held that the seized document from the Mittal Group did not provide sufficient evidence of higher payments for land, emphasizing that it reflected market value, not actual payments. The AO's presumption of unaccounted consideration was deemed unsubstantiated, and the Tribunal applied findings from a previous case to conclude that no extra consideration was received by the assessee. en-us Fri, 30 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Feb 2016 12:06:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178322 The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT (A)'s deletion of the addition of Rs. 11,70,56,000 to the assessee's income. The Tribunal held that the seized document from the Mittal Group did not provide sufficient evidence of higher payments for land, emphasizing that it reflected market value, not actual payments. The AO's presumption of unaccounted consideration was deemed unsubstantiated, and the Tribunal applied findings from a previous case to conclude that no extra consideration was received by the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 30 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178322