https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95241 Additions under ss. 69A and 69B were examined on whether they could rest primarily on a statement recorded u/s 132(4) and generalized references to digital material. It was held that, absent identification of any specific incriminating seized document and without corroborative evidence of unexplained money or investment, the deeming provisions could not be invoked; the seized cash/jewellery already stood offered as business income from land-deal activity and was taxable u/s 28, not u/ss. 69A/69B r/w s. 115BBE, so these additions were deleted. On brokerage, addition was sustained where there was clear admission of receipt from both sides, but deleted for another transaction where no admission existed and the AO's 1% estimate lacked documentary/third-party support; CIT(A)'s order was affirmed. - ITAT en-us Sat, 20 Dec 2025 07:45:34 +0530 Sat, 20 Dec 2025 07:45:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95241 Additions under ss. 69A and 69B were examined on whether they could rest primarily on a statement recorded u/s 132(4) and generalized references to digital material. It was held that, absent identification of any specific incriminating seized document and without corroborative evidence of unexplained money or investment, the deeming provisions could not be invoked; the seized cash/jewellery already stood offered as business income from land-deal activity and was taxable u/s 28, not u/ss. 69A/69B r/w s. 115BBE, so these additions were deleted. On brokerage, addition was sustained where there was clear admission of receipt from both sides, but deleted for another transaction where no admission existed and the AO's 1% estimate lacked documentary/third-party support; CIT(A)'s order was affirmed. - ITAT Highlights Income Tax Sat, 20 Dec 2025 07:45:34 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95241