<?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 (5) TMI 2207 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464831</link>
    <description>Trust funds in foreign bank accounts were not assessable as the assessee&#039;s undisclosed income where the trust deed, beneficiary details, bank material and beneficiary affidavit showed non-resident family sources and third-party beneficiaries, and the department failed to trace any direct money trail to the assessee or prove real ownership or beneficial interest. A fiduciary role as trustee, protector or signatory was insufficient by itself. The separate addition for payment to the assessee&#039;s nephew also failed because the explanation was supported by the will and fund-flow records from the HUF account. Once the substantive additions were deleted, the consequential penalty could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2025 18:05:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=865209" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 2207 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464831</link>
      <description>Trust funds in foreign bank accounts were not assessable as the assessee&#039;s undisclosed income where the trust deed, beneficiary details, bank material and beneficiary affidavit showed non-resident family sources and third-party beneficiaries, and the department failed to trace any direct money trail to the assessee or prove real ownership or beneficial interest. A fiduciary role as trustee, protector or signatory was insufficient by itself. The separate addition for payment to the assessee&#039;s nephew also failed because the explanation was supported by the will and fund-flow records from the HUF account. Once the substantive additions were deleted, the consequential penalty could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464831</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>