<?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>2020 (1) TMI 982 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391369</link>
    <description>Section 69A additions for alleged unexplained jewellery and cash were deleted where the assessee supported the jewellery with family ownership claims, gold bond documents and wealth-tax records, and the aggregate jewellery available from family sources exceeded the quantity found. Delay in filing some wealth-tax returns and mismatch in certain serial numbers was not enough to dislodge an otherwise plausible explanation. For the cash addition, part of the cash was accepted as business balance, and the balance was treated as explainable from cash holdings of other concerns for which the assessee acted in a responsible capacity and whose balances were verifiable. The Revenue&#039;s suspicion was held insufficient to sustain the additions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 26 Jan 2020 14:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=601548" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (1) TMI 982 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391369</link>
      <description>Section 69A additions for alleged unexplained jewellery and cash were deleted where the assessee supported the jewellery with family ownership claims, gold bond documents and wealth-tax records, and the aggregate jewellery available from family sources exceeded the quantity found. Delay in filing some wealth-tax returns and mismatch in certain serial numbers was not enough to dislodge an otherwise plausible explanation. For the cash addition, part of the cash was accepted as business balance, and the balance was treated as explainable from cash holdings of other concerns for which the assessee acted in a responsible capacity and whose balances were verifiable. The Revenue&#039;s suspicion was held insufficient to sustain the additions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391369</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>