<?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 822 - ITAT PANAJI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791620</link>
    <description>Reassessment based on recorded reasons, supply of those reasons, and issuance of statutory notices was sustained where documentary evidence, identity records, PAN/Aadhaar-linked details, specimen signatures, and the society manager&#039;s statement established that the person assessed was the same person named in the notices despite a variation in name. The procedural objection that the notice was issued to a different person was rejected. The addition for unexplained cash and term deposits, together with related interest, was also upheld because the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of the deposits on the society records, statement evidence, cross-examination material, and surrounding circumstances.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 09:01:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=901902" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 822 - ITAT PANAJI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791620</link>
      <description>Reassessment based on recorded reasons, supply of those reasons, and issuance of statutory notices was sustained where documentary evidence, identity records, PAN/Aadhaar-linked details, specimen signatures, and the society manager&#039;s statement established that the person assessed was the same person named in the notices despite a variation in name. The procedural objection that the notice was issued to a different person was rejected. The addition for unexplained cash and term deposits, together with related interest, was also upheld because the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of the deposits on the society records, statement evidence, cross-examination material, and surrounding circumstances.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791620</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>