https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304379 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, directing the deletion of the addition of 270 grams of gold jewelry as unexplained investment. They held that the 370 grams of gold jewelry, falling within the permissible limit under CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2016, should not be treated as unexplained. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal emphasized that jewelry within the prescribed limits should not be added as unexplained investment. The appeal was allowed on 07/08/2019. en-us Wed, 07 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Sep 2022 08:23:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304379 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, directing the deletion of the addition of 270 grams of gold jewelry as unexplained investment. They held that the 370 grams of gold jewelry, falling within the permissible limit under CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2016, should not be treated as unexplained. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal emphasized that jewelry within the prescribed limits should not be added as unexplained investment. The appeal was allowed on 07/08/2019. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 07 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304379