https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793892 Additions under sections 69 and 69A failed where the Department relied on an undated, unsigned loose paper and third-party material without proving direct nexus to the assessee. The ITAT held that a debit balance in another person's name could not be treated as unexplained investment, that a mere working on seized paper did not establish ownership of unexplained money, that a stock-shortage addition based only on presumption was unsustainable when job-work records supported the assessee's explanation, and that alleged betting income could not be added on the basis of untested police-derived WhatsApp material. All substantive additions were deleted and full relief was granted. en-us Mon, 22 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Jun 2026 08:27:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793892 Additions under sections 69 and 69A failed where the Department relied on an undated, unsigned loose paper and third-party material without proving direct nexus to the assessee. The ITAT held that a debit balance in another person's name could not be treated as unexplained investment, that a mere working on seized paper did not establish ownership of unexplained money, that a stock-shortage addition based only on presumption was unsustainable when job-work records supported the assessee's explanation, and that alleged betting income could not be added on the basis of untested police-derived WhatsApp material. All substantive additions were deleted and full relief was granted. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 22 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793892