<?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>2025 (3) TMI 1908 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469933</link>
    <description>Third-party seized documents and statements cannot, by themselves, justify an addition under section 69C unless there is independent evidence linking the material to the assessee. The presumption under section 132(4A) remains confined to the person from whose possession the material was found and cannot be extended to a different assessee without proper corroboration. On that basis, the addition was deleted and the assessee succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2026 20:20:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=910942" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 1908 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469933</link>
      <description>Third-party seized documents and statements cannot, by themselves, justify an addition under section 69C unless there is independent evidence linking the material to the assessee. The presumption under section 132(4A) remains confined to the person from whose possession the material was found and cannot be extended to a different assessee without proper corroboration. On that basis, the addition was deleted and the assessee succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469933</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>