<?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 (5) TMI 44 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790842</link>
    <description>Jewellery found during search was explained by affidavits, purchase invoices, bank withdrawals and family details showing gifts on ceremonial occasions and purchases from disclosed funds. The authorities&#039; rejection of that explanation was found inconsistent with the surrounding facts and customary family possession of jewellery. CBDT guidance on seizure of jewellery supported acceptance of a reasonable quantity for family members, and the remaining jewellery was treated as explained on the material produced. The addition for unexplained jewellery was therefore deleted; the separate challenge to approval under section 153D was not adjudicated because it was not pressed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 May 2026 10:14:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=899356" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 44 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790842</link>
      <description>Jewellery found during search was explained by affidavits, purchase invoices, bank withdrawals and family details showing gifts on ceremonial occasions and purchases from disclosed funds. The authorities&#039; rejection of that explanation was found inconsistent with the surrounding facts and customary family possession of jewellery. CBDT guidance on seizure of jewellery supported acceptance of a reasonable quantity for family members, and the remaining jewellery was treated as explained on the material produced. The addition for unexplained jewellery was therefore deleted; the separate challenge to approval under section 153D was not adjudicated because it was not pressed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790842</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>