https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469648 On search-based addition, the Tribunal found that the seized loose/excel sheet contained only rough notings, did not name the assessees, and was unsupported by corroborative evidence; it therefore could not, by itself, sustain the addition despite statements recorded during search and the presumptions under sections 132(4) and 292C. The High Court treated these as pure findings of fact, found no perversity, and held that no substantial question of law arose under section 260A. The deletion of the addition was upheld. en-us Wed, 24 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Jun 2026 10:48:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469648 On search-based addition, the Tribunal found that the seized loose/excel sheet contained only rough notings, did not name the assessees, and was unsupported by corroborative evidence; it therefore could not, by itself, sustain the addition despite statements recorded during search and the presumptions under sections 132(4) and 292C. The High Court treated these as pure findings of fact, found no perversity, and held that no substantial question of law arose under section 260A. The deletion of the addition was upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 24 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469648