https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777401 An addition for unexplained investment could not be sustained where the immovable property was received under a gift deed from the assessee's father-in-law, a specified relative, and the record did not prove any actual purchase or investment by the assessee. The consequential penalty under section 271(1)(c) also could not survive once the quantum addition was deleted, because the penalty was wholly dependent on that addition. The appeals were therefore allowed and both the addition and penalty were set aside. en-us Thu, 09 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Aug 2025 08:56:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777401 An addition for unexplained investment could not be sustained where the immovable property was received under a gift deed from the assessee's father-in-law, a specified relative, and the record did not prove any actual purchase or investment by the assessee. The consequential penalty under section 271(1)(c) also could not survive once the quantum addition was deleted, because the penalty was wholly dependent on that addition. The appeals were therefore allowed and both the addition and penalty were set aside. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 09 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777401