<?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>2024 (5) TMI 1680 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467084</link>
    <description>Cash and jewellery found in search were held explainable where the assessee produced contemporaneous documents, affidavits, bank records and confirmations from the persons concerned. The cash explanation, traced to advance money received against an agreement to sell land, was accepted because the supporting parties confirmed the transaction and the time gap or delayed sale deed, by itself, did not discredit the source. The jewellery addition was also rejected because family affidavits were unrebutted and the assessee&#039;s admitted jewellery fell within the permissible holding recognised by CBDT Instruction No. 1916 and prevailing social practice. The additions were deleted as based on conjecture rather than evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2026 10:12:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=889036" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (5) TMI 1680 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467084</link>
      <description>Cash and jewellery found in search were held explainable where the assessee produced contemporaneous documents, affidavits, bank records and confirmations from the persons concerned. The cash explanation, traced to advance money received against an agreement to sell land, was accepted because the supporting parties confirmed the transaction and the time gap or delayed sale deed, by itself, did not discredit the source. The jewellery addition was also rejected because family affidavits were unrebutted and the assessee&#039;s admitted jewellery fell within the permissible holding recognised by CBDT Instruction No. 1916 and prevailing social practice. The additions were deleted as based on conjecture rather than evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467084</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>