<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2021 (3) TMI 8 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404680</link>
    <description>The Delhi HC upheld ITAT&#039;s decision to delete additions made under Section 153A assessment based on bogus LTCG claims. The AO relied solely on a statement recorded under Section 132(4) from a third party during search proceedings, without providing corroborative evidence or allowing cross-examination. The court found that the statement alone was insufficient to justify additions, particularly since the assessee denied knowing the witness. Crucially, the Revenue failed to follow mandatory procedures under Section 153C when using incriminating material from a third party&#039;s search. The HC ruled that using such material without proper compliance with Section 153C procedures was legally impermissible. Since the ITAT&#039;s factual finding was based on evidence evaluation, the HC declined to interfere under Section 260A jurisdiction. The assessment was held invalid due to procedural non-compliance and insufficient evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2025 16:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=637690" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (3) TMI 8 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404680</link>
      <description>The Delhi HC upheld ITAT&#039;s decision to delete additions made under Section 153A assessment based on bogus LTCG claims. The AO relied solely on a statement recorded under Section 132(4) from a third party during search proceedings, without providing corroborative evidence or allowing cross-examination. The court found that the statement alone was insufficient to justify additions, particularly since the assessee denied knowing the witness. Crucially, the Revenue failed to follow mandatory procedures under Section 153C when using incriminating material from a third party&#039;s search. The HC ruled that using such material without proper compliance with Section 153C procedures was legally impermissible. Since the ITAT&#039;s factual finding was based on evidence evaluation, the HC declined to interfere under Section 260A jurisdiction. The assessment was held invalid due to procedural non-compliance and insufficient evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404680</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>