<?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>2015 (6) TMI 1068 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185986</link>
    <description>Block assessment additions must rest on evidence found during search or material directly relatable to that evidence. On-money payment for immovable property could not be sustained without seized material; the estimate of unexplained investment was also deleted because it was based only on stamp duty, registration and construction particulars, not search evidence. A post-search valuation report alone could not support an addition for cost of improvement in the absence of contemporaneous material. The alleged excess gold jewellery addition failed because the assessee furnished reconciliation and the discrepancy was not enough to justify unexplained income. The assessee obtained complete relief and the Revenue&#039;s additions were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2016 12:40:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=440079" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (6) TMI 1068 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185986</link>
      <description>Block assessment additions must rest on evidence found during search or material directly relatable to that evidence. On-money payment for immovable property could not be sustained without seized material; the estimate of unexplained investment was also deleted because it was based only on stamp duty, registration and construction particulars, not search evidence. A post-search valuation report alone could not support an addition for cost of improvement in the absence of contemporaneous material. The alleged excess gold jewellery addition failed because the assessee furnished reconciliation and the discrepancy was not enough to justify unexplained income. The assessee obtained complete relief and the Revenue&#039;s additions were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185986</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>