https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784474 In an appeal challenging additions under the Income-tax Act, the dominant issue was whether the first appellate authority complied with s. 250(4) and s. 250(6) by independently examining evidence and issuing a speaking order. On the s. 68 unexplained cash credit addition, the appellate authority merely affirmed the AO without specific enquiry or independent reasons; the matter was therefore set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, and the grounds were allowed for statistical purposes. On the ad hoc disallowance of expenses, the appellate authority reduced the rate from 20% to 15% without analysis of the P/L or justification, amounting to guesswork and a perverse order; the disallowance was set aside and the ground was allowed. en-us Tue, 18 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Jan 2026 08:47:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784474 In an appeal challenging additions under the Income-tax Act, the dominant issue was whether the first appellate authority complied with s. 250(4) and s. 250(6) by independently examining evidence and issuing a speaking order. On the s. 68 unexplained cash credit addition, the appellate authority merely affirmed the AO without specific enquiry or independent reasons; the matter was therefore set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, and the grounds were allowed for statistical purposes. On the ad hoc disallowance of expenses, the appellate authority reduced the rate from 20% to 15% without analysis of the P/L or justification, amounting to guesswork and a perverse order; the disallowance was set aside and the ground was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 18 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784474