<?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>Unexplained money additions fail where presumptions replace corroborative enquiry and independent evidence in cash payment disputes.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99580</link>
    <description>Additions for unexplained money failed where the Revenue relied on presumption without independent corroboration. For the alleged cash payment to or on behalf of Ms. Jwala Gutta, the Tribunal found that the seized material did not establish that the assessee himself made any cash payment, and there was no confirmation from Ms. Gutta or other supporting evidence; the addition was deleted. For the alleged cash component of marriage expenses, the Assessing Officer made no enquiry from the recipient and did not properly examine the possibility of funding from Shagun receipts, so the addition was also deleted. The Tribunal treated both additions as unsupported by evidence and allowed the appeal, with the same view applied to the other assessment years.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2026 07:30:04 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 May 2026 07:30:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=900505" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Unexplained money additions fail where presumptions replace corroborative enquiry and independent evidence in cash payment disputes.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99580</link>
      <description>Additions for unexplained money failed where the Revenue relied on presumption without independent corroboration. For the alleged cash payment to or on behalf of Ms. Jwala Gutta, the Tribunal found that the seized material did not establish that the assessee himself made any cash payment, and there was no confirmation from Ms. Gutta or other supporting evidence; the addition was deleted. For the alleged cash component of marriage expenses, the Assessing Officer made no enquiry from the recipient and did not properly examine the possibility of funding from Shagun receipts, so the addition was also deleted. The Tribunal treated both additions as unsupported by evidence and allowed the appeal, with the same view applied to the other assessment years.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2026 07:30:04 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99580</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>