<?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>2026 (2) TMI 153 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785958</link>
    <description>Seized diaries recording unaccounted sales (code &quot;802&quot;) were treated as business receipts and a net profit addition of 2.5% on gross diary receipts was held sufficient to capture revenue leakage; that addition was sustained as business income and aggregated to the specified quantum. Because receipts were taxed by profit estimation, duplicate additions for payments, investments and jewellery purchased from those receipts were disallowed and deleted. Separate additions based on unsupported statements or absent documentary nexus (alleged cash payments, land payment, car purchase) were rejected for lack of evidence. Telescoping benefit was granted where cash was subsumed in estimated unaccounted business profits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2026 08:39:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=883765" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (2) TMI 153 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785958</link>
      <description>Seized diaries recording unaccounted sales (code &quot;802&quot;) were treated as business receipts and a net profit addition of 2.5% on gross diary receipts was held sufficient to capture revenue leakage; that addition was sustained as business income and aggregated to the specified quantum. Because receipts were taxed by profit estimation, duplicate additions for payments, investments and jewellery purchased from those receipts were disallowed and deleted. Separate additions based on unsupported statements or absent documentary nexus (alleged cash payments, land payment, car purchase) were rejected for lack of evidence. Telescoping benefit was granted where cash was subsumed in estimated unaccounted business profits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785958</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>