https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462118 The ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee, deleting additions made under Section 68 regarding gift receipts from a non-resident donor. The Revenue failed to produce any seized incriminating material to support the additions, relying solely on statements recorded under Section 132(4) during search operations. Following precedents from Kabul Chawla (Delhi HC) and Abhisar Buildwell (SC), the tribunal held that statements without corroborating incriminating evidence cannot form the sole basis for computing undisclosed income. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld. en-us Thu, 24 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 May 2025 15:16:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462118 The ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee, deleting additions made under Section 68 regarding gift receipts from a non-resident donor. The Revenue failed to produce any seized incriminating material to support the additions, relying solely on statements recorded under Section 132(4) during search operations. Following precedents from Kabul Chawla (Delhi HC) and Abhisar Buildwell (SC), the tribunal held that statements without corroborating incriminating evidence cannot form the sole basis for computing undisclosed income. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 24 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462118