<?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 151 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785956</link>
    <description>Discrepancy between POS gross billing and regular books arose from inclusion of GST in POS figures while the assessee records sales net of GST; stock transfers were not treated as sales, and therefore did not indicate unrecorded sales. On that basis the tribunal accepted the assessee&#039;s reconciliation and restricted the addition to a lumpsum Rs. 5 lakh as business income, deleting the remainder. The assessee&#039;s contemporaneous cashinhand ledger and search statement were held sufficient to discharge the onus for cash found; corresponding additions against the assessee and spouse were deleted. Jewellery explained save a negligible 10.960 grams, so related additions were disallowed.</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=883767" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (2) TMI 151 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785956</link>
      <description>Discrepancy between POS gross billing and regular books arose from inclusion of GST in POS figures while the assessee records sales net of GST; stock transfers were not treated as sales, and therefore did not indicate unrecorded sales. On that basis the tribunal accepted the assessee&#039;s reconciliation and restricted the addition to a lumpsum Rs. 5 lakh as business income, deleting the remainder. The assessee&#039;s contemporaneous cashinhand ledger and search statement were held sufficient to discharge the onus for cash found; corresponding additions against the assessee and spouse were deleted. Jewellery explained save a negligible 10.960 grams, so related additions were disallowed.</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=785956</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>