https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302652 Additions under section 153C could not stand because the seized material did not have the required live nexus with the assessee's total income; in an unabated assessment, incriminating material relatable to the relevant year is necessary, so the jurisdictional challenge succeeded. The land sold was treated as agricultural land because conversion for non-agricultural use was subject to a condition that was not shown to have been fulfilled, and revenue records, RTC entries and cultivation evidence supported continuing agricultural use; mere conversion or intended non-agricultural use was insufficient. The capital gains addition therefore failed. en-us Wed, 09 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Jun 2022 19:03:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302652 Additions under section 153C could not stand because the seized material did not have the required live nexus with the assessee's total income; in an unabated assessment, incriminating material relatable to the relevant year is necessary, so the jurisdictional challenge succeeded. The land sold was treated as agricultural land because conversion for non-agricultural use was subject to a condition that was not shown to have been fulfilled, and revenue records, RTC entries and cultivation evidence supported continuing agricultural use; mere conversion or intended non-agricultural use was insufficient. The capital gains addition therefore failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 09 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302652