https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274559 A proposed additional question under section 40(a)(ia) was not separately entertained because it had already been decided against the Revenue in the assessee's own case. The remaining proposed question on unexplained expenditure was treated as purely fact-bound, as it arose from the Tribunal's findings and did not raise any question of law. The appeal therefore proceeded only on the admitted substantial question of law, while the additional questions were declined for separate consideration or rejected as non-justiciable questions of law. en-us Wed, 09 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Aug 2018 07:38:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274559 A proposed additional question under section 40(a)(ia) was not separately entertained because it had already been decided against the Revenue in the assessee's own case. The remaining proposed question on unexplained expenditure was treated as purely fact-bound, as it arose from the Tribunal's findings and did not raise any question of law. The appeal therefore proceeded only on the admitted substantial question of law, while the additional questions were declined for separate consideration or rejected as non-justiciable questions of law. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 09 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274559