ITO v. Kalidas Jivabhai Patel (2025) 237 TTJ 95 (Ahd)(Trib)

S. 69: Unexplained investments-Capital introduced by partner-The explanation furnished by the assessee cannot be rejected merely on suspicion-Order of CIT(A) deleting the addition was affirmed.

Held that the partner has recorded his capital contribution to the firm in his books of account and explained that he received the funds from his father through regular banking channels, who in turn generated such funds from the sale of shares through a recognised stock exchange, which is fully documented. The order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition was affirmed. (AY.2017-18)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*