<?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>1999 (2) TMI 671 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176376</link>
    <description>In block assessment, jewellery addition was deleted because prior wealth-tax disclosures showing substantial gold holdings supported the assessee&#039;s explanation for jewellery found and sold during search. The additions for NRI gifts and the related premium were sustained because the alleged gift transaction was not proved by reliable surrounding evidence and the donor was not produced. The addition for non-NRI gifts was deleted because the material was insufficient to treat the amounts as undisclosed income. The addition for unexplained investment in property was sustained because the assessee failed to explain the source of funds and the discrepancy between book and agreement values remained unresolved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2015 13:21:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=409831" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (2) TMI 671 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176376</link>
      <description>In block assessment, jewellery addition was deleted because prior wealth-tax disclosures showing substantial gold holdings supported the assessee&#039;s explanation for jewellery found and sold during search. The additions for NRI gifts and the related premium were sustained because the alleged gift transaction was not proved by reliable surrounding evidence and the donor was not produced. The addition for non-NRI gifts was deleted because the material was insufficient to treat the amounts as undisclosed income. The addition for unexplained investment in property was sustained because the assessee failed to explain the source of funds and the discrepancy between book and agreement values remained unresolved.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176376</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>