<?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>2026 (5) TMI 174 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790972</link>
    <description>Section 153C remained applicable because the search under section 132 had begun before 1 April 2021, so the amended search assessment regime under the Finance Act, 2021 did not invalidate the notice or consequential assessment. Additions based on pen drive data and printouts were deleted because the electronic material lacked the mandatory section 65B certificate under the Indian Evidence Act and was unsupported by independent corroboration. The addition founded on a third-party voucher was also deleted because the voucher did not bear the assessee&#039;s signature, had no corroborative verification, and contained internal inconsistency as to whether it recorded receipt or payment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 May 2026 07:57:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=899737" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 174 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790972</link>
      <description>Section 153C remained applicable because the search under section 132 had begun before 1 April 2021, so the amended search assessment regime under the Finance Act, 2021 did not invalidate the notice or consequential assessment. Additions based on pen drive data and printouts were deleted because the electronic material lacked the mandatory section 65B certificate under the Indian Evidence Act and was unsupported by independent corroboration. The addition founded on a third-party voucher was also deleted because the voucher did not bear the assessee&#039;s signature, had no corroborative verification, and contained internal inconsistency as to whether it recorded receipt or payment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790972</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>