<?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>ITAT deletes additions for unaccounted income and unexplained jewelry following Rajeshwar Singh Yadav precedent and accepting engagement gift explanation</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90063</link>
    <description>ITAT deleted additions for unaccounted income from contractor, following precedent in Rajeshwar Singh Yadav case where similar factual circumstances existed involving Executive Engineer receiving alleged payments from same contractor. No substantial material differentiated appellant&#039;s case from established precedent. Regarding unexplained jewelry addition of Rs. 2,76,101 for 76.064 gms, ITAT accepted appellant&#039;s explanation that ornaments were engagement gifts from prospective in-laws when daughter got engaged. Wife&#039;s contradictory statement during search attributed to stress and husband&#039;s absence. ITAT found mathematical approach for partial jewelry addition imprudent when remaining 1651.046 gms adequately explained per CBDT Instruction 19.....</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2025 08:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2025 08:34:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=833426" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>ITAT deletes additions for unaccounted income and unexplained jewelry following Rajeshwar Singh Yadav precedent and accepting engagement gift explanation</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90063</link>
      <description>ITAT deleted additions for unaccounted income from contractor, following precedent in Rajeshwar Singh Yadav case where similar factual circumstances existed involving Executive Engineer receiving alleged payments from same contractor. No substantial material differentiated appellant&#039;s case from established precedent. Regarding unexplained jewelry addition of Rs. 2,76,101 for 76.064 gms, ITAT accepted appellant&#039;s explanation that ornaments were engagement gifts from prospective in-laws when daughter got engaged. Wife&#039;s contradictory statement during search attributed to stress and husband&#039;s absence. ITAT found mathematical approach for partial jewelry addition imprudent when remaining 1651.046 gms adequately explained per CBDT Instruction 19.....</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2025 08:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90063</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>