https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466862 The tribunal addressed two tax issues: whether draft third party documents and a non executed memorandum of understanding can sustain an addition as unexplained investment, and whether claimed agricultural expenditure without substantiation is allowable. It held that draft MOU fragments, corrections and third party statements lacking finalized instruments or bank evidence lack sufficient evidentiary weight to prove actual investment, therefore the Section 69 addition was deleted. Conversely, the assessee failed to quantify or substantiate agricultural expenditures and supporting records did not show crop or expenses; that disallowance was sustained. Appeal partly allowed accordingly. en-us Wed, 17 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Feb 2026 19:00:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466862 The tribunal addressed two tax issues: whether draft third party documents and a non executed memorandum of understanding can sustain an addition as unexplained investment, and whether claimed agricultural expenditure without substantiation is allowable. It held that draft MOU fragments, corrections and third party statements lacking finalized instruments or bank evidence lack sufficient evidentiary weight to prove actual investment, therefore the Section 69 addition was deleted. Conversely, the assessee failed to quantify or substantiate agricultural expenditures and supporting records did not show crop or expenses; that disallowance was sustained. Appeal partly allowed accordingly. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 17 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466862