<?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>2022 (2) TMI 759 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418508</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessees, directing the deletion of additions related to cash found in lockers and jewelry as unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the cash had already been taxed in the hands of another individual, preventing double taxation. The jewelry found was within permissible limits as per CBDT Circular, leading to the deletion of its addition. The decision was based on evidence, legal provisions, and the principle of avoiding double taxation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Feb 2022 18:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=670546" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (2) TMI 759 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418508</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessees, directing the deletion of additions related to cash found in lockers and jewelry as unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the cash had already been taxed in the hands of another individual, preventing double taxation. The jewelry found was within permissible limits as per CBDT Circular, leading to the deletion of its addition. The decision was based on evidence, legal provisions, and the principle of avoiding double taxation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418508</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>