https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14011 In an appeal under section 260A, interference was not justified because the challenge did not raise any substantial question of law. The partners had credited sums to their capital accounts from stated individual sources, and the appellate authorities found as a matter of fact that the partners had already declared the income in their own hands and paid tax on it. There was no concrete evidence of concealed income or any discrepancy attributable to the firm, and no material showed the factual finding to be perverse or unsupported by evidence. The addition in the firm's hands was therefore not sustained. en-us Thu, 19 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 10:14:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14011 In an appeal under section 260A, interference was not justified because the challenge did not raise any substantial question of law. The partners had credited sums to their capital accounts from stated individual sources, and the appellate authorities found as a matter of fact that the partners had already declared the income in their own hands and paid tax on it. There was no concrete evidence of concealed income or any discrepancy attributable to the firm, and no material showed the factual finding to be perverse or unsupported by evidence. The addition in the firm's hands was therefore not sustained. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 19 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14011