https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780265 Approval under section 153D was held valid because it is an administrative safeguard, and mere brevity of reasons did not by itself prove non-application of mind; no material showed that the approving authority had failed to examine the seized and appraisal material before granting approval. The addition for unexplained expenditure under section 69C was sustained because the seized diary contained election-related entries and connecting details that, read with surrounding circumstances and the presumption under section 292C, sufficiently linked the expenditure to the assessee while the explanation offered remained incomplete and uncorroborated. The higher tax rate of 60% under section 115BBE was held inapplicable for the relevant assessment year. en-us Fri, 24 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Oct 2025 09:17:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780265 Approval under section 153D was held valid because it is an administrative safeguard, and mere brevity of reasons did not by itself prove non-application of mind; no material showed that the approving authority had failed to examine the seized and appraisal material before granting approval. The addition for unexplained expenditure under section 69C was sustained because the seized diary contained election-related entries and connecting details that, read with surrounding circumstances and the presumption under section 292C, sufficiently linked the expenditure to the assessee while the explanation offered remained incomplete and uncorroborated. The higher tax rate of 60% under section 115BBE was held inapplicable for the relevant assessment year. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 24 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780265