https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466796 Whether the addition under section 132(4A) read with section 69A could be sustained against a company director was resolved by applying the principle that the statutory presumption is rebuttable and the Revenue bears the burden to prove ownership contrary to records. The factual record showed lockers, rents, agreements and accounting in the company's name and no evidence linking seized cash and jewellery to the director personally; accordingly the presumption was applied against the company and the addition was not sustainable against the director. en-us Mon, 24 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Feb 2026 08:22:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466796 Whether the addition under section 132(4A) read with section 69A could be sustained against a company director was resolved by applying the principle that the statutory presumption is rebuttable and the Revenue bears the burden to prove ownership contrary to records. The factual record showed lockers, rents, agreements and accounting in the company's name and no evidence linking seized cash and jewellery to the director personally; accordingly the presumption was applied against the company and the addition was not sustainable against the director. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 24 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466796