https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26922 The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, against the Revenue, holding that the Tribunal's conclusion was not perverse and was supported by material evidence. The Court emphasized that findings of fact can only be interfered with if they are perverse, based on no evidence, or contradictory to the evidence. The Tribunal's decision to delete the additional investment estimation of Rs. 90,000 was upheld, considering the availability of funds from previous years' additions. en-us Fri, 06 Jul 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:50:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26922 The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, against the Revenue, holding that the Tribunal's conclusion was not perverse and was supported by material evidence. The Court emphasized that findings of fact can only be interfered with if they are perverse, based on no evidence, or contradictory to the evidence. The Tribunal's decision to delete the additional investment estimation of Rs. 90,000 was upheld, considering the availability of funds from previous years' additions. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 06 Jul 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26922