https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771363 The ITAT Bangalore allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting additions made under sections 69A and 153A. The tribunal held that additions under section 153A for unabated assessments can only be based on incriminating material found during search proceedings under section 132. The AO's reliance on information obtained from Lokayukta under section 133(6) after the search was impermissible, as this constituted "other information" not seized during search. Regarding diary entries, the tribunal ruled that loose papers without corroborative evidence cannot support additions, especially when authorship is unknown and the assessee denies knowledge. For jewellery additions under section 69A, no unexplained investment was established for the relevant assessment year. en-us Fri, 31 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 May 2025 13:18:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771363 The ITAT Bangalore allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting additions made under sections 69A and 153A. The tribunal held that additions under section 153A for unabated assessments can only be based on incriminating material found during search proceedings under section 132. The AO's reliance on information obtained from Lokayukta under section 133(6) after the search was impermissible, as this constituted "other information" not seized during search. Regarding diary entries, the tribunal ruled that loose papers without corroborative evidence cannot support additions, especially when authorship is unknown and the assessee denies knowledge. For jewellery additions under section 69A, no unexplained investment was established for the relevant assessment year. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 31 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771363