<?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 (2) TMI 1671 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467540</link>
    <description>Declared income remained available and unutilized, so telescopic credit was allowed against cash found during search and the addition was unsustainable. For jewellery, the Revenue failed to prove any quantitative mismatch and relied only on a higher valuation; the assessee&#039;s explanation of appreciation in gold prices was accepted, so that addition was also unsustainable. The Tribunal accordingly upheld the deletions and rejected the Revenue&#039;s challenge.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2026 20:37:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=892355" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 1671 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467540</link>
      <description>Declared income remained available and unutilized, so telescopic credit was allowed against cash found during search and the addition was unsustainable. For jewellery, the Revenue failed to prove any quantitative mismatch and relied only on a higher valuation; the assessee&#039;s explanation of appreciation in gold prices was accepted, so that addition was also unsustainable. The Tribunal accordingly upheld the deletions and rejected the Revenue&#039;s challenge.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467540</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>