“Section 34(4)”
The decision most relied on for Section 34(4) is Society v. UOI (394 ITR 220), cited in 493 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 34(4)
Uncorroborated loose papers or documents found during a search operation have no evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining undisclosed income. Additions based on such material require independent evidence to establish trustworthiness and a direct link to the assessee.
Loose sheets of paper, excel sheets, or diaries, often referred to as 'dumb documents,' are wholly irrelevant as evidence and not admissible under Section 34 of the Evidence Act if they lack evidentiary value. Additions to income cannot be made solely based on such documents without corroborating, reliable, and admissible evidence supported by other circumstances.
Circulars and instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act have the force of law and are binding on all income tax authorities. These circulars can mitigate the rigour of statutory provisions, provide administrative relief, and ensure uniform application of the Act for the benefit of the assessee.
The second proviso to Section 34(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 is unconstitutional for violating Article 14, as it allowed reassessment notices to be issued to "any person" without limit. The limitation period for issuing a reassessment notice is determined by the law prevailing on the date of issuance, including the retrospective effect of the 1948 amendment for assessing foreign income under Section 4(2).
An amount received by an assessee in the guise of share application money from accommodation entry providers is liable to be added to its taxable income under Section 68, provided the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the subscriber are not established.
A provision created by an assessee for wage arrears in anticipation of a pay revision cannot be treated as an unascertained liability if there is no dispute regarding the terms of employment and the only dispute is about the quantification of wages.
Where only a part of a trust's income is diverted in contravention of Section 13(1)(c) or 13(1)(d), only that diverted portion of the income is taxable, not the entire income. This means tax should be levied on the relevant income or a part of it, potentially at the maximum marginal rate, rather than denying exemption under Section 11 for the entire income.
The Assessing Officer cannot make additions under Section 14A concerning investments in shares if the investment was not made for future benefit and was intended for business purposes.