https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788044 Tribunal addressed two issues: first, declared brokerage/commission of Rs.5,65,000 was recorded in the return and not proved to be fictitious; ledger extracts lacked independent corroboration, so the addition under section 68 and taxation under section 115BBE was deleted in favour of the assessee. Second, seized documents and admissions during search proceedings established bogus billing aggregating to Rs.11,57,11,453 and supported estimation of commission at 0.25%; accordingly the protective addition of Rs.2,89,278 was converted into a substantive assessment in favour of the revenue. The ITAT affirmed both appellate findings on evidentiary and estimation grounds. en-us Thu, 12 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Mar 2026 08:42:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788044 Tribunal addressed two issues: first, declared brokerage/commission of Rs.5,65,000 was recorded in the return and not proved to be fictitious; ledger extracts lacked independent corroboration, so the addition under section 68 and taxation under section 115BBE was deleted in favour of the assessee. Second, seized documents and admissions during search proceedings established bogus billing aggregating to Rs.11,57,11,453 and supported estimation of commission at 0.25%; accordingly the protective addition of Rs.2,89,278 was converted into a substantive assessment in favour of the revenue. The ITAT affirmed both appellate findings on evidentiary and estimation grounds. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 12 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788044