https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382207 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in a tax case, finding that treating the peak value of investment as unexplained income would result in impermissible double addition under section 44AF of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal ordered the deletion of the disputed addition made by the ld. CIT (A) based on the peak value of the investment. Additionally, the Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(b) due to the lack of concrete evidence of notice service, emphasizing the need for proof rather than assumptions or presumptions. en-us Tue, 29 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Jun 2019 14:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382207 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in a tax case, finding that treating the peak value of investment as unexplained income would result in impermissible double addition under section 44AF of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal ordered the deletion of the disputed addition made by the ld. CIT (A) based on the peak value of the investment. Additionally, the Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(b) due to the lack of concrete evidence of notice service, emphasizing the need for proof rather than assumptions or presumptions. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 29 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382207