https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402814 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissing the addition of unexplained income of Rs. 61,96,070 made by the Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The Tribunal found that the excess stock income was admitted and taxed separately, aligning with the capital increase explanation provided by the assessee, who correctly applied the excess income to the capital account. Thus, no unexplained investment was identified, resulting in the allowance of the appeal. en-us Wed, 06 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Jan 2021 11:42:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402814 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissing the addition of unexplained income of Rs. 61,96,070 made by the Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The Tribunal found that the excess stock income was admitted and taxed separately, aligning with the capital increase explanation provided by the assessee, who correctly applied the excess income to the capital account. Thus, no unexplained investment was identified, resulting in the allowance of the appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 06 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402814