<?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 (10) TMI 240 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349085</link>
    <description>Cash sales in gold bullion trading may be treated as unexplained income or unexplained expenditure where the assessee fails to establish the identity of purchasers, the genuineness of transactions, and the commercial reality of the claimed trade pattern. Large cash dealings in a short period, absence of evidence of delivery, storage, or business infrastructure, and cash deposits made after the alleged sales can justify an adverse inference on the touchstone of human probabilities. By contrast, an enhancement based on closing capital difference in an earlier proprietary concern requires fresh examination where effective opportunity of hearing was not granted, and the matter may be remanded for de novo consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Oct 2017 20:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=491616" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 240 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349085</link>
      <description>Cash sales in gold bullion trading may be treated as unexplained income or unexplained expenditure where the assessee fails to establish the identity of purchasers, the genuineness of transactions, and the commercial reality of the claimed trade pattern. Large cash dealings in a short period, absence of evidence of delivery, storage, or business infrastructure, and cash deposits made after the alleged sales can justify an adverse inference on the touchstone of human probabilities. By contrast, an enhancement based on closing capital difference in an earlier proprietary concern requires fresh examination where effective opportunity of hearing was not granted, and the matter may be remanded for de novo consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349085</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>