https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777003 Concurrent findings by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal on the sufficiency of the assessee's evidence for credits, share capital, advances and short-term capital gains did not justify interference under section 260A. The High Court held that the Revenue's challenge to deletion of additions under section 68 and to treatment of short-term capital gain as business income raised only questions of fact, because the assessee had produced books, bank statements, confirmations and contract notes, and the Assessing Officer's view had been diluted after remand. No perversity or substantial question of law was shown, so the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Tue, 12 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Aug 2025 08:33:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777003 Concurrent findings by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal on the sufficiency of the assessee's evidence for credits, share capital, advances and short-term capital gains did not justify interference under section 260A. The High Court held that the Revenue's challenge to deletion of additions under section 68 and to treatment of short-term capital gain as business income raised only questions of fact, because the assessee had produced books, bank statements, confirmations and contract notes, and the Assessing Officer's view had been diluted after remand. No perversity or substantial question of law was shown, so the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 12 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777003