Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Incriminating documents seized during search proceedings, like notarized satakhat and digital data, were the basis for additions u/ss 69A and 69B. However, the CIT(A) deleted the additions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, observing that the satakhat lacked acknowledgment of payment, the sellers were not examined, and no independent investigation was conducted. Regarding the digital data, no evidence of on-money payment for land purchase was found. The assessee's father had filed a settlement application, offering income on the transaction amount, which was accepted. The Tribunal held that in the absence of corroborative evidence of on-money payment, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was justified.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.