https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345692 The ITAT partially allowed the appeal, reversing the CIT(A) order for Assessment Year 2006-07. The addition of undisclosed income on account of unexplained investment in jewelry was deleted, as the ITAT found the explanation plausible given the family's affluent background. The disallowance of deduction u/s 80C for &8377; 20,000 was reversed, granting the full deduction based on legal arguments. The ITAT's decision favored the assessee, leading to the deletion of the additions and allowing the deductions in full. en-us Fri, 17 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Jul 2017 09:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345692 The ITAT partially allowed the appeal, reversing the CIT(A) order for Assessment Year 2006-07. The addition of undisclosed income on account of unexplained investment in jewelry was deleted, as the ITAT found the explanation plausible given the family's affluent background. The disallowance of deduction u/s 80C for &8377; 20,000 was reversed, granting the full deduction based on legal arguments. The ITAT's decision favored the assessee, leading to the deletion of the additions and allowing the deductions in full. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 17 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345692