https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353989 Entries in a seized diary or loose paper do not, by themselves, prove actual expenditure for an addition under section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal held that handwritten figures, names and dates were insufficient where the record did not show whether they represented quotations, estimates, receipts or payments, and no independent corroboration such as bills, vouchers, delivery challans or recipient confirmations was produced. Presumptions under sections 132(4A) and 292C could not be used to treat the entries as proved financial transactions. In the absence of corroborative evidence, the addition could not rest on suspicion or probabilities, and the Revenue's appeal failed. en-us Fri, 12 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:25:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353989 Entries in a seized diary or loose paper do not, by themselves, prove actual expenditure for an addition under section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal held that handwritten figures, names and dates were insufficient where the record did not show whether they represented quotations, estimates, receipts or payments, and no independent corroboration such as bills, vouchers, delivery challans or recipient confirmations was produced. Presumptions under sections 132(4A) and 292C could not be used to treat the entries as proved financial transactions. In the absence of corroborative evidence, the addition could not rest on suspicion or probabilities, and the Revenue's appeal failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 12 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353989