<?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>Search assessment limitation and third-party digital evidence fail without person-wise panchanama, corroboration, or proven nexus.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98247</link>
    <description>Limitation for search assessments under a joint warrant was required to be computed person-wise under section 153B read with section 292CC, so the last panchanama in another person&#039;s case could not extend time for the assessee; the assessments completed after the statutory period were quashed. Additions based on third-party emails, loose sheets, WhatsApp chats and other electronic material were deleted because the Department failed to prove ownership, nexus, fund flow or corroboration. Estimated commission on alleged bogus sub-contracts and cash-repass theories also failed for want of supporting evidence and cross-examination. Deduction under section 80IA(4) for infrastructure work was upheld on binding precedent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2026 08:27:10 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2026 08:27:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=893840" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Search assessment limitation and third-party digital evidence fail without person-wise panchanama, corroboration, or proven nexus.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98247</link>
      <description>Limitation for search assessments under a joint warrant was required to be computed person-wise under section 153B read with section 292CC, so the last panchanama in another person&#039;s case could not extend time for the assessee; the assessments completed after the statutory period were quashed. Additions based on third-party emails, loose sheets, WhatsApp chats and other electronic material were deleted because the Department failed to prove ownership, nexus, fund flow or corroboration. Estimated commission on alleged bogus sub-contracts and cash-repass theories also failed for want of supporting evidence and cross-examination. Deduction under section 80IA(4) for infrastructure work was upheld on binding precedent.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2026 08:27:10 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98247</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>