- (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act") against the order dated 30.8.2010, Annexure-3 passed by the income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'B' Chandigarh in ITA No.29/CHD/2010, for the assessment year 2006-07, claiming following substantial questions of law:- "i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in upholding the order of CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 38,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained unsecured loans ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in upholding the order of CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 21,55,000/- made on account of unexplained investment in purchase of land iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in upholding the order of CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 24,10,000/- made on account of unexplained payment of stamp duty iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in upholding the order of CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,30,000/- made on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account -
(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The assessee company is carrying on the business of real estates, purchase, construction, sale of buildings of flats, shops, godown etc. It filed its return of income for the assessment year 2006- 07 on 30.11.2006 declaring total income at ' Nil. Assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 30.12.2008, Annexure-1 and the following additions were made:- JUDGEMENT_327_LAWS(P&H)4_2016_1.html
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-revenue. On the basis of substantial questions of law claimed by the revenue, the following four issues arise for our consideration in this appeal:- JUDGEMENT_327_LAWS(P&H)4_2016_2.html;