https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365949 Addition under section 69C was sustained because the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of expenditure said to have been incurred towards stamp duty and court fees. The appellate authorities found, on concurrent facts, that the explanation lacked credible documentary or circumstantial support, the affidavit relied on was self-serving, and no satisfactory material was produced to verify the alleged source or return of cash. On those findings, no substantial question of law arose for consideration under section 260-A. en-us Mon, 14 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Aug 2018 08:33:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365949 Addition under section 69C was sustained because the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of expenditure said to have been incurred towards stamp duty and court fees. The appellate authorities found, on concurrent facts, that the explanation lacked credible documentary or circumstantial support, the affidavit relied on was self-serving, and no satisfactory material was produced to verify the alleged source or return of cash. On those findings, no substantial question of law arose for consideration under section 260-A. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 14 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365949