https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20827 The Tribunal's addition based on estimated income from diverted funds was sustained because the court treated the Tribunal's concurrent factual findings as primary facts: there was no total or partial partition of the Hindu undivided family, the amount remained family property, and the alleged loan to coparceners was not proved by any agreement or interest stipulation. In a reference under section 256(2), the court declined to reappreciate evidence in the absence of any plea that those findings were perverse, and the issue was answered in favour of the Revenue. en-us Mon, 01 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:56:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20827 The Tribunal's addition based on estimated income from diverted funds was sustained because the court treated the Tribunal's concurrent factual findings as primary facts: there was no total or partial partition of the Hindu undivided family, the amount remained family property, and the alleged loan to coparceners was not proved by any agreement or interest stipulation. In a reference under section 256(2), the court declined to reappreciate evidence in the absence of any plea that those findings were perverse, and the issue was answered in favour of the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 01 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20827