https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330254 The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to add Rs. 83,13,850/- as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act, rejecting the assessee's claim that the co-purchaser was the real investor. The tribunal found inconsistencies in the evidence presented and concluded that the land purchase was benami, with the assessee as the true owner. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the addition of unexplained investments in the purchase of agricultural land. en-us Mon, 11 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Jul 2016 10:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330254 The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to add Rs. 83,13,850/- as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act, rejecting the assessee's claim that the co-purchaser was the real investor. The tribunal found inconsistencies in the evidence presented and concluded that the land purchase was benami, with the assessee as the true owner. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the addition of unexplained investments in the purchase of agricultural land. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 11 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330254