https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790217 Recovered electronic records from an assessee's own mobile phone, seized under panchnama and later forensically examined, were treated as admissible corroborative evidence despite the absence of a separate section 138C certificate. On that material, including parallel invoices, the director's statement and buyer statements, the declared transaction value was found unreliable and its rejection with re-determination of assessable value was upheld under the valuation rules. The mismatch in declared and recovered invoices also supported misdeclaration, confiscation and invocation of the extended limitation period under section 28(4). Penalty under section 114A was sustained, while additional penalties under section 114AA were set aside. en-us Thu, 16 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Apr 2026 08:47:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790217 Recovered electronic records from an assessee's own mobile phone, seized under panchnama and later forensically examined, were treated as admissible corroborative evidence despite the absence of a separate section 138C certificate. On that material, including parallel invoices, the director's statement and buyer statements, the declared transaction value was found unreliable and its rejection with re-determination of assessable value was upheld under the valuation rules. The mismatch in declared and recovered invoices also supported misdeclaration, confiscation and invocation of the extended limitation period under section 28(4). Penalty under section 114A was sustained, while additional penalties under section 114AA were set aside. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 16 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790217