https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328975 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's appeal. It was held that statements under Section 132(4) have evidentiary value but require corroborative evidence. The AO's failure to provide specific evidence from seized materials to justify disallowances and additions was noted. The importance of concrete evidence over mere statements was emphasized, in line with judicial precedents and CBDT instructions. en-us Wed, 15 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Jun 2016 12:58:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328975 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's appeal. It was held that statements under Section 132(4) have evidentiary value but require corroborative evidence. The AO's failure to provide specific evidence from seized materials to justify disallowances and additions was noted. The importance of concrete evidence over mere statements was emphasized, in line with judicial precedents and CBDT instructions. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 15 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328975