<?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>2025 (7) TMI 1157 - ITAT JODHPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775089</link>
    <description>A completed and unabated assessment under section 153A cannot be disturbed in the absence of incriminating material found during the assessee&#039;s own search, so additions based only on later information or material from another person&#039;s premises were unsustainable. The Tribunal also held that foreign bank account and portfolio assets could not be taxed in the assessee&#039;s individual hands where the documentary record showed ownership by a family trust and the assessee was only a signatory, not the beneficial owner; the additions under sections 69 and 69A were deleted. The challenge to the assessment order for want of DIN and to the section 153D approval failed, as the defect was treated as curable and the approval was not shown to be mechanical.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2025 12:53:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=837221" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 1157 - ITAT JODHPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775089</link>
      <description>A completed and unabated assessment under section 153A cannot be disturbed in the absence of incriminating material found during the assessee&#039;s own search, so additions based only on later information or material from another person&#039;s premises were unsustainable. The Tribunal also held that foreign bank account and portfolio assets could not be taxed in the assessee&#039;s individual hands where the documentary record showed ownership by a family trust and the assessee was only a signatory, not the beneficial owner; the additions under sections 69 and 69A were deleted. The challenge to the assessment order for want of DIN and to the section 153D approval failed, as the defect was treated as curable and the approval was not shown to be mechanical.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775089</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>