https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404057 The appellant's request for remand was denied by the Tribunal due to concerns of potential evidence fabrication. The Tribunal determined that the expenditure in question was for a public issue of shares, not for a health farm membership drive as claimed by the appellant. The lower authorities and Tribunal concluded that the expenditure was capital in nature, dismissing the appeal as no substantial legal question was found. The Tribunal emphasized that remand orders should only be issued for legal compliance, not to allow filling gaps in the case. The appeal was dismissed, and the miscellaneous petition was closed. en-us Fri, 05 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Apr 2021 18:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404057 The appellant's request for remand was denied by the Tribunal due to concerns of potential evidence fabrication. The Tribunal determined that the expenditure in question was for a public issue of shares, not for a health farm membership drive as claimed by the appellant. The lower authorities and Tribunal concluded that the expenditure was capital in nature, dismissing the appeal as no substantial legal question was found. The Tribunal emphasized that remand orders should only be issued for legal compliance, not to allow filling gaps in the case. The appeal was dismissed, and the miscellaneous petition was closed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 05 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404057