https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337963 The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 49,50,000 as an investment in Emmar Hills Township. The Tribunal found the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the source of the investment satisfactory, noting that the company had already treated the amount as additional income and accounted for the advance given to the assessee. The judgment emphasized the significance of adequately explaining investment sources and the relevance of company financial statements in verifying transaction legitimacy. en-us Wed, 18 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Jan 2017 08:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337963 The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 49,50,000 as an investment in Emmar Hills Township. The Tribunal found the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the source of the investment satisfactory, noting that the company had already treated the amount as additional income and accounted for the advance given to the assessee. The judgment emphasized the significance of adequately explaining investment sources and the relevance of company financial statements in verifying transaction legitimacy. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 18 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337963