https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182388 The case involved the seizure of a pen drive with incriminating information leading to an addition in income under section 69 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) deleted the addition due to lack of reliance on the pen drive data, which was confirmed by the ITAT. The ITAT emphasized the absence of concrete evidence to prove cash payments, including the Superintendent of Police's report and Mr. Chetan Gupta's denial of receiving cash. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose for consideration. en-us Mon, 28 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 May 2016 13:00:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182388 The case involved the seizure of a pen drive with incriminating information leading to an addition in income under section 69 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) deleted the addition due to lack of reliance on the pen drive data, which was confirmed by the ITAT. The ITAT emphasized the absence of concrete evidence to prove cash payments, including the Superintendent of Police's report and Mr. Chetan Gupta's denial of receiving cash. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose for consideration. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 28 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182388