“Section 88(1)(6)”
The decision most relied on for Section 88(1)(6) is Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del) Satinder Kumar (HUF) V. CIT: 106 ITR 64 (HP) DCIT v. Sreeni Printers (88 ITR 293), cited in 60 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 88(1)(6)
An addition to income cannot be made solely on the basis of a statement recorded during a search under section 132(4) without independent corroborating evidence. Similarly, a penalty cannot be levied merely on the basis of assessment order findings, allowing the assessee to challenge the underlying facts in penalty proceedings.
The Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Travancore Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. is cited for the principle of diversion of income by overriding title, distinguishing it from issues related to the deductibility of certain taxes like education cess.
