https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361206 Additions based on search material and the presumption under section 292C were held unsustainable where the factual findings showed the assessee had purchased only 7.4 vighas of land, not the larger area estimated by the Assessing Officer, and the alleged undisclosed investment was already covered by the disclosure made in the return after search. On those facts, the appellate authority and Tribunal found no basis for treating the difference in valuation as unexplained investment, and no substantial question of law arose from that factual appreciation. The appeal therefore failed. en-us Mon, 12 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 May 2018 16:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361206 Additions based on search material and the presumption under section 292C were held unsustainable where the factual findings showed the assessee had purchased only 7.4 vighas of land, not the larger area estimated by the Assessing Officer, and the alleged undisclosed investment was already covered by the disclosure made in the return after search. On those facts, the appellate authority and Tribunal found no basis for treating the difference in valuation as unexplained investment, and no substantial question of law arose from that factual appreciation. The appeal therefore failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 12 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361206