https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3472 The HC allowed the revenue appeal, holding the Tribunal erred in sustaining additions of Rs.40,13,000 under s.40A(3) by adopting a hyper-technical view and ignoring the scope of Rule 6DD(j); the assessee's bank-account modus operandi and genuineness of transactions were upheld. The HC set aside the Tribunal order to the extent of those additions but remanded the question of Rs.6,98,000 to the ITO for fresh consideration, finding that sum could not be treated as unexplained cash credit without further inquiry; no additions in respect of Rs.6,98,000 may be sustained until the ITO's review. en-us Tue, 07 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Sep 2025 14:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3472 The HC allowed the revenue appeal, holding the Tribunal erred in sustaining additions of Rs.40,13,000 under s.40A(3) by adopting a hyper-technical view and ignoring the scope of Rule 6DD(j); the assessee's bank-account modus operandi and genuineness of transactions were upheld. The HC set aside the Tribunal order to the extent of those additions but remanded the question of Rs.6,98,000 to the ITO for fresh consideration, finding that sum could not be treated as unexplained cash credit without further inquiry; no additions in respect of Rs.6,98,000 may be sustained until the ITO's review. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 07 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3472