https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269519 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, setting aside the lower authorities' decision to add Rs. 7,51,610 as undisclosed investment based on excess gold jewellery found during a search operation. The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support treating the jewellery as undisclosed investment, emphasizing that it could belong to family members and the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition, deeming it unjustified. en-us Fri, 04 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Dec 2015 22:40:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269519 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, setting aside the lower authorities' decision to add Rs. 7,51,610 as undisclosed investment based on excess gold jewellery found during a search operation. The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support treating the jewellery as undisclosed investment, emphasizing that it could belong to family members and the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition, deeming it unjustified. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 04 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269519