<?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 939 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791737</link>
    <description>In search assessment commentary, additions based on WhatsApp chats, alleged cash dealings, and seized third-party material were found unsustainable where they were unsupported by corroborative evidence, lacked proper digital evidence compliance, and were not confronted to the assessee with cross-examination. The text also notes that professional income already disclosed in the spouse&#039;s return could not be taxed again in the assessee&#039;s hands absent material showing it was his undisclosed income. For agricultural income, the additions failed because the assessee produced land and crop records, while the Revenue relied only on presumption without cogent proof that the income belonged to the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 May 2026 09:09:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=902360" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 939 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791737</link>
      <description>In search assessment commentary, additions based on WhatsApp chats, alleged cash dealings, and seized third-party material were found unsustainable where they were unsupported by corroborative evidence, lacked proper digital evidence compliance, and were not confronted to the assessee with cross-examination. The text also notes that professional income already disclosed in the spouse&#039;s return could not be taxed again in the assessee&#039;s hands absent material showing it was his undisclosed income. For agricultural income, the additions failed because the assessee produced land and crop records, while the Revenue relied only on presumption without cogent proof that the income belonged to the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791737</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>