https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789168 The Tribunal held that the diamonds' existence, processing, and sale were supported by disclosure scheme declarations, tax payments, invoices, ledger accounts, bank records, stock records, and third-party confirmations, so the sale proceeds could not be treated as unexplained cash credits and the commission claim was not sustainable. It further held that, because the diamonds were acquired by gift from the previous owner, the holding period had to be computed under Explanation 1(i)(b) to section 2(42A), and the disclosure scheme date did not control capital gains classification. The additions under sections 68 and 69C were deleted, and the receipts were taxable, if at all, as long-term capital gains already declared. en-us Wed, 25 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Apr 2026 08:53:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789168 The Tribunal held that the diamonds' existence, processing, and sale were supported by disclosure scheme declarations, tax payments, invoices, ledger accounts, bank records, stock records, and third-party confirmations, so the sale proceeds could not be treated as unexplained cash credits and the commission claim was not sustainable. It further held that, because the diamonds were acquired by gift from the previous owner, the holding period had to be computed under Explanation 1(i)(b) to section 2(42A), and the disclosure scheme date did not control capital gains classification. The additions under sections 68 and 69C were deleted, and the receipts were taxable, if at all, as long-term capital gains already declared. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 25 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789168