<?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>Evidentiary support and cross-examination rights defeat additions based on WhatsApp chats, retracted statements, and presumptions.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99830</link>
    <description>WhatsApp messages used to support an alleged cash transaction were held insufficient without corroboration, so the related addition was deleted. Additions based on a retracted search statement and a third-party statement were also unsustainable where the assessee sought copies of material and cross-examination, but no proper evidentiary foundation or independent enquiry was made. Income already returned and taxed in the spouse&#039;s hands could not be taxed again as the assessee&#039;s undisclosed income. For agricultural income, the Tribunal accepted documentary support and upheld only a limited estimate rather than the full addition. Additions based on presumed agricultural income of family members were likewise rejected for want of evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 16 May 2026 09:09:55 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 May 2026 09:09:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=902309" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Evidentiary support and cross-examination rights defeat additions based on WhatsApp chats, retracted statements, and presumptions.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99830</link>
      <description>WhatsApp messages used to support an alleged cash transaction were held insufficient without corroboration, so the related addition was deleted. Additions based on a retracted search statement and a third-party statement were also unsustainable where the assessee sought copies of material and cross-examination, but no proper evidentiary foundation or independent enquiry was made. Income already returned and taxed in the spouse&#039;s hands could not be taxed again as the assessee&#039;s undisclosed income. For agricultural income, the Tribunal accepted documentary support and upheld only a limited estimate rather than the full addition. Additions based on presumed agricultural income of family members were likewise rejected for want of evidence.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 16 May 2026 09:09:55 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99830</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>