https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776780 Seized notebooks, employee statements and surrounding circumstances were treated as sufficient to sustain additions for undisclosed land-transaction income, while a bare retraction or unsubstantiated explanation did not displace the presumption from the material. The same unaccounted receipts could not be taxed twice, so telescoping was accepted for employee bank credits and the CBIT donation where they were linked to the already assessed land income. Commission income from land settlement and an unexplained flat investment were also sustained for want of credible source evidence, whereas the Vinoba Nagar Development Society donation was deleted because it rested only on a vague statement without corroboration. en-us Wed, 13 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Aug 2025 16:59:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776780 Seized notebooks, employee statements and surrounding circumstances were treated as sufficient to sustain additions for undisclosed land-transaction income, while a bare retraction or unsubstantiated explanation did not displace the presumption from the material. The same unaccounted receipts could not be taxed twice, so telescoping was accepted for employee bank credits and the CBIT donation where they were linked to the already assessed land income. Commission income from land settlement and an unexplained flat investment were also sustained for want of credible source evidence, whereas the Vinoba Nagar Development Society donation was deleted because it rested only on a vague statement without corroboration. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 13 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776780