https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432732 The tribunal upheld the addition under section 51, ruling that the assessee failed to prove the forfeited amount's genuineness, directing the Assessing Officer to treat it as "unexplained." However, the disallowance of Rs.19,40,440 under section 54F deduction was deleted as the assessee had purchased a new residential asset before the return due date. The tribunal clarified its jurisdiction to change the head of income and partially allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee on January 10, 2023. en-us Tue, 10 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Jan 2023 08:03:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432732 The tribunal upheld the addition under section 51, ruling that the assessee failed to prove the forfeited amount's genuineness, directing the Assessing Officer to treat it as "unexplained." However, the disallowance of Rs.19,40,440 under section 54F deduction was deleted as the assessee had purchased a new residential asset before the return due date. The tribunal clarified its jurisdiction to change the head of income and partially allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee on January 10, 2023. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 10 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432732