https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792957 Third-party seized material cannot by itself support an addition against an assessee where the assessee denies receipt and no independent corroboration, such as a cash trail, withdrawal evidence, confirmation, or acknowledgement, exists. The statutory presumptions for seized material do not extend to an assessee merely because material was found with a third party. Receipts connected with a joint development agreement must be examined under the capital gains framework by determining whether a transfer occurred and the relevant year of taxability. Such receipts should not be treated as income from other sources without that analysis. en-us Fri, 15 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Jun 2026 08:42:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792957 Third-party seized material cannot by itself support an addition against an assessee where the assessee denies receipt and no independent corroboration, such as a cash trail, withdrawal evidence, confirmation, or acknowledgement, exists. The statutory presumptions for seized material do not extend to an assessee merely because material was found with a third party. Receipts connected with a joint development agreement must be examined under the capital gains framework by determining whether a transfer occurred and the relevant year of taxability. Such receipts should not be treated as income from other sources without that analysis. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 15 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792957