<?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>Disproportionate property investment triggers income tax reassessment, but assessee&#039;s explanation partly accepted.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83693</link>
    <description>The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had rightly formed a &#039;reason to believe&#039; and not merely a &#039;reason to suspect&#039; regarding escapement of income based on the assessee&#039;s investment in property being disproportionate to their disclosed income. The approval u/s 151(2) for reopening assessment was properly granted after due application of mind by the Principal Commissioner. However, the Tribunal directed deletion of the addition made u/s 69 regarding unexplained investment, as the assessee had duly explained their share of the investment, while leaving the issue of unsecured loan and jewellery amount received by the assessee&#039;s wife to be examined separately.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Dec 2024 08:37:21 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Dec 2024 08:37:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=780952" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Disproportionate property investment triggers income tax reassessment, but assessee&#039;s explanation partly accepted.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83693</link>
      <description>The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had rightly formed a &#039;reason to believe&#039; and not merely a &#039;reason to suspect&#039; regarding escapement of income based on the assessee&#039;s investment in property being disproportionate to their disclosed income. The approval u/s 151(2) for reopening assessment was properly granted after due application of mind by the Principal Commissioner. However, the Tribunal directed deletion of the addition made u/s 69 regarding unexplained investment, as the assessee had duly explained their share of the investment, while leaving the issue of unsecured loan and jewellery amount received by the assessee&#039;s wife to be examined separately.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Dec 2024 08:37:21 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83693</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>