https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378163 The case involved issues concerning the legality of reopening assessment under sections 148/147, computation of income from property, and addition of income under section 68 as unexplained cash credit. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) partly allowed the appeal, upholding the computation of rental income as "Income from House Property" and directing the deletion of the addition under section 68. The ITAT emphasized that a firm is not obligated to explain the source of a partner's capital contribution, in line with the Gujarat High Court ruling in PCIT vs Vaishnodevi Refoils & Solvex. en-us Fri, 29 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Apr 2019 13:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378163 The case involved issues concerning the legality of reopening assessment under sections 148/147, computation of income from property, and addition of income under section 68 as unexplained cash credit. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) partly allowed the appeal, upholding the computation of rental income as "Income from House Property" and directing the deletion of the addition under section 68. The ITAT emphasized that a firm is not obligated to explain the source of a partner's capital contribution, in line with the Gujarat High Court ruling in PCIT vs Vaishnodevi Refoils & Solvex. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 29 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378163