https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352901 In determining disallowance of business expenditure under s.37, the HC held that where documents evidencing expenditure are seized during a search, the statutory presumption under s.132(4A) operates in favour of the assessee as to the authenticity of such documents and the fact of expenditure reflected therein. Since the AO made no meaningful enquiry or investigation into the source of investment or the genuineness of the expenditure, no further proof under s.37 was required beyond the seized documents. The HC clarified that the presumption is confined strictly to the contents of the seized material and cannot be extended beyond it. The disallowance was set aside and relief granted to the assessee. en-us Tue, 12 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Jan 2026 10:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352901 In determining disallowance of business expenditure under s.37, the HC held that where documents evidencing expenditure are seized during a search, the statutory presumption under s.132(4A) operates in favour of the assessee as to the authenticity of such documents and the fact of expenditure reflected therein. Since the AO made no meaningful enquiry or investigation into the source of investment or the genuineness of the expenditure, no further proof under s.37 was required beyond the seized documents. The HC clarified that the presumption is confined strictly to the contents of the seized material and cannot be extended beyond it. The disallowance was set aside and relief granted to the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 12 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352901