<?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>2023 (7) TMI 1620 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465277</link>
    <description>Third-party seized ledgers and statements, without direct corroboration linking the assessee, were held insufficient to sustain estimated commission on alleged accommodation entries or to deny long-term capital gains exemption on disputed scrips under section 10(38). The Tribunal also found SMS messages, treated by the Department as cash transactions, could not by themselves justify an unexplained cash addition where the communications were consistent with banking or RTGS transfers and no independent incriminating material connected the assessee to the amounts. The jewellery addition was not finally sustained because verification of the family explanation and permissible holdings was incomplete, so the matter was remitted for fresh examination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Dec 2025 12:37:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=871376" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (7) TMI 1620 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465277</link>
      <description>Third-party seized ledgers and statements, without direct corroboration linking the assessee, were held insufficient to sustain estimated commission on alleged accommodation entries or to deny long-term capital gains exemption on disputed scrips under section 10(38). The Tribunal also found SMS messages, treated by the Department as cash transactions, could not by themselves justify an unexplained cash addition where the communications were consistent with banking or RTGS transfers and no independent incriminating material connected the assessee to the amounts. The jewellery addition was not finally sustained because verification of the family explanation and permissible holdings was incomplete, so the matter was remitted for fresh examination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465277</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>