https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327990 The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude jewellery belonging to family members and restrict the addition to 136.90 gms, amounting to Rs. 2,44,897. The ITAT found that the son and daughter-in-law had separate sources of income and separate lockers, indicating distinct ownership of jewellery. The ITAT also supported the CIT(A)'s application of CBDT Instruction No.1916 dated 11.5.1994 in determining unexplained jewellery. The ITAT emphasized the need for positive evidence to explain jewellery beyond the 1100 gms already accounted for, ultimately dismissing both appeals and upholding the CIT(A)'s order. en-us Wed, 18 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 May 2016 10:31:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327990 The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude jewellery belonging to family members and restrict the addition to 136.90 gms, amounting to Rs. 2,44,897. The ITAT found that the son and daughter-in-law had separate sources of income and separate lockers, indicating distinct ownership of jewellery. The ITAT also supported the CIT(A)'s application of CBDT Instruction No.1916 dated 11.5.1994 in determining unexplained jewellery. The ITAT emphasized the need for positive evidence to explain jewellery beyond the 1100 gms already accounted for, ultimately dismissing both appeals and upholding the CIT(A)'s order. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 18 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327990