https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400892 Reopening based on the purchase of immovable property was upheld because the recorded reasons showed a need to verify the stated source of investment and the genuineness of gifts and loan explanations. In the section 68 matter, the appellate enhancement was deleted because the assessee had partly substantiated some credits, while the remaining gifts and loan required further verification; the low marriage-expense addition was sustained and the opening-capital issue did not survive independently. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) was set aside to the extent the related quantum additions were deleted or remanded, as penalty could not survive mechanically where the underlying additions were unsettled. en-us Wed, 11 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Nov 2020 11:17:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400892 Reopening based on the purchase of immovable property was upheld because the recorded reasons showed a need to verify the stated source of investment and the genuineness of gifts and loan explanations. In the section 68 matter, the appellate enhancement was deleted because the assessee had partly substantiated some credits, while the remaining gifts and loan required further verification; the low marriage-expense addition was sustained and the opening-capital issue did not survive independently. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) was set aside to the extent the related quantum additions were deleted or remanded, as penalty could not survive mechanically where the underlying additions were unsettled. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 11 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400892