https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416810 CBDT Instruction No. 1916 was applied as a reasonable benchmark for jewellery ordinarily held in an Indian household, and jewellery attributed to the assessee's wife, including diamond-studded items, was treated as explained within the permissible limit; the jewellery addition was deleted. Cash of Rs. 50,000 was treated as unexplained because the assessee produced no bank withdrawal proof, cashbook entry, or other documentary support, and no material was placed to disturb the factual finding; the cash addition was sustained. The matter resulted in partial relief for the assessee. en-us Wed, 03 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Jan 2022 10:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416810 CBDT Instruction No. 1916 was applied as a reasonable benchmark for jewellery ordinarily held in an Indian household, and jewellery attributed to the assessee's wife, including diamond-studded items, was treated as explained within the permissible limit; the jewellery addition was deleted. Cash of Rs. 50,000 was treated as unexplained because the assessee produced no bank withdrawal proof, cashbook entry, or other documentary support, and no material was placed to disturb the factual finding; the cash addition was sustained. The matter resulted in partial relief for the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 03 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416810