https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212460 Entries in a diary seized during search can support an income-tax addition where section 132(4A) applies, because the presumption as to ownership and correctness of contents is rebuttable but available in search proceedings. The Madras High Court held that the appellate authorities erred in treating the diary entries as mere scribbling and in ignoring the statutory presumption. It also rejected the argument that the assessee-firm was unconnected with the transaction merely because the property stood in the partners' names. The Assessing Officer's addition for unexplained investment was therefore upheld and the Tribunal's deletion was unsustainable. en-us Thu, 07 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Nov 2012 16:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212460 Entries in a diary seized during search can support an income-tax addition where section 132(4A) applies, because the presumption as to ownership and correctness of contents is rebuttable but available in search proceedings. The Madras High Court held that the appellate authorities erred in treating the diary entries as mere scribbling and in ignoring the statutory presumption. It also rejected the argument that the assessee-firm was unconnected with the transaction merely because the property stood in the partners' names. The Assessing Officer's addition for unexplained investment was therefore upheld and the Tribunal's deletion was unsustainable. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 07 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212460