https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411165 The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order upholding the addition of 50% of the interest income. It held that the interest income should be taxed in the hands of Mrs. Pushpa N. Khimji, the owner of the funds, not the assessee. The Tribunal did not address the validity of reopening the assessment, leaving it open. Appeals for subsequent years were also allowed, vacating additions made by the CIT(A) regarding interest income from the foreign bank account. en-us Mon, 02 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Aug 2021 09:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411165 The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order upholding the addition of 50% of the interest income. It held that the interest income should be taxed in the hands of Mrs. Pushpa N. Khimji, the owner of the funds, not the assessee. The Tribunal did not address the validity of reopening the assessment, leaving it open. Appeals for subsequent years were also allowed, vacating additions made by the CIT(A) regarding interest income from the foreign bank account. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 02 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411165