<?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>2017 (3) TMI 577 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340074</link>
    <description>The Tribunal overturned the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)&#039; decision to partially uphold the addition of undisclosed income from investments in mutual funds made by the appellant&#039;s relatives. The Tribunal ruled that the addition was not sustainable based on conjecture, emphasizing that the appellant&#039;s role in the investments was not conclusively established. The appellant successfully argued that the investments were made by relatives and that he was only a second holder for safety purposes. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, concluding that the addition could not be upheld solely on the possibility of undisclosed funds being used for the investments.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Mar 2017 12:13:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=461166" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 577 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340074</link>
      <description>The Tribunal overturned the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)&#039; decision to partially uphold the addition of undisclosed income from investments in mutual funds made by the appellant&#039;s relatives. The Tribunal ruled that the addition was not sustainable based on conjecture, emphasizing that the appellant&#039;s role in the investments was not conclusively established. The appellant successfully argued that the investments were made by relatives and that he was only a second holder for safety purposes. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, concluding that the addition could not be upheld solely on the possibility of undisclosed funds being used for the investments.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340074</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>