<?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 609 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791407</link>
    <description>Seized diary entries reflecting a single stream of unaccounted cash transactions were treated as part of the same finance activity, so only the embedded profit element was taxable and telescoping of related cash flows was permitted. Separate additions for unexplained expenditure were deleted because the receipts and outgoings were already linked within the same cash pool. Additions for cash found during search and for an alleged property advance were also deleted, as the material lacked independent corroboration, the paper was unsigned, ownership and actual payment were not proved, and a retracted statement alone could not sustain section 69A.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 May 2026 09:50:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=900907" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 609 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791407</link>
      <description>Seized diary entries reflecting a single stream of unaccounted cash transactions were treated as part of the same finance activity, so only the embedded profit element was taxable and telescoping of related cash flows was permitted. Separate additions for unexplained expenditure were deleted because the receipts and outgoings were already linked within the same cash pool. Additions for cash found during search and for an alleged property advance were also deleted, as the material lacked independent corroboration, the paper was unsigned, ownership and actual payment were not proved, and a retracted statement alone could not sustain section 69A.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791407</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>