<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Revenue appeal dismissed; taxpayer relief as WhatsApp screenshots unauthenticated without section 65B(4) certificate, s.69 addition set aside</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94193</link>
    <description>ITAT dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal and upheld the assessee&#039;s stance, setting aside the addition under s.69. The Tribunal found the impugned WhatsApp screenshots unauthenticated, lacking any official signature or section 65B(4) certificate, and noted absence of the source device; thus the digital excerpts were inadmissible and susceptible to fabrication. The AO failed to obtain corroboration from Registration/Stamp Duty authorities, ignored the government-fixed stamp duty rate, and produced no comparable market evidence; the contested market-value computation appeared conjectural. No independent evidence of unexplained cash receipts was established, rendering the addition speculative and unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 15 Nov 2025 07:56:56 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Nov 2025 07:56:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=864800" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Revenue appeal dismissed; taxpayer relief as WhatsApp screenshots unauthenticated without section 65B(4) certificate, s.69 addition set aside</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94193</link>
      <description>ITAT dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal and upheld the assessee&#039;s stance, setting aside the addition under s.69. The Tribunal found the impugned WhatsApp screenshots unauthenticated, lacking any official signature or section 65B(4) certificate, and noted absence of the source device; thus the digital excerpts were inadmissible and susceptible to fabrication. The AO failed to obtain corroboration from Registration/Stamp Duty authorities, ignored the government-fixed stamp duty rate, and produced no comparable market evidence; the contested market-value computation appeared conjectural. No independent evidence of unexplained cash receipts was established, rendering the addition speculative and unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 15 Nov 2025 07:56:56 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94193</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>