https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763534 Section 260A confines High Court interference to substantial questions of law, so a challenge based only on appreciation of evidence does not qualify. On the facts, the genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of share applicants, and the source of share application money, had been examined on bank records, financial statements and other documentary material; concurrent findings upheld deletion of the Section 68 addition were therefore not open to reappreciation. No perversity, evidentiary vacuum or legal error was shown, and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Tue, 17 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Dec 2024 08:53:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763534 Section 260A confines High Court interference to substantial questions of law, so a challenge based only on appreciation of evidence does not qualify. On the facts, the genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of share applicants, and the source of share application money, had been examined on bank records, financial statements and other documentary material; concurrent findings upheld deletion of the Section 68 addition were therefore not open to reappreciation. No perversity, evidentiary vacuum or legal error was shown, and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 17 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763534