https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273104 The CIT(A) ruled in favor of the assessee, finding that the transactions involving payments to the Vijay Dixit group were not attributable to the assessee. The CIT(A) disagreed with the AO's calculations of unexplained payments and interest, deeming them unsupported by evidence. Additionally, the CIT(A) held that a bank overdraft could not be considered an unexplained investment for the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. en-us Tue, 03 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Jun 2018 17:23:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273104 The CIT(A) ruled in favor of the assessee, finding that the transactions involving payments to the Vijay Dixit group were not attributable to the assessee. The CIT(A) disagreed with the AO's calculations of unexplained payments and interest, deeming them unsupported by evidence. Additionally, the CIT(A) held that a bank overdraft could not be considered an unexplained investment for the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 03 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273104