https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791846 Cash paid through the assessee's personal assistant for purchase of jewellery, followed by a cheque refund of the balance in the assessee's name and credit of that cheque into his bank account, established a direct nexus with the transaction. On those facts, the explanation that the cash payment did not relate to the assessee was rejected, and the precedents relied upon were treated as inapplicable. The impugned amount was therefore sustained as unexplained investment under section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the assessee's challenge failed. en-us Wed, 08 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 May 2026 08:18:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791846 Cash paid through the assessee's personal assistant for purchase of jewellery, followed by a cheque refund of the balance in the assessee's name and credit of that cheque into his bank account, established a direct nexus with the transaction. On those facts, the explanation that the cash payment did not relate to the assessee was rejected, and the precedents relied upon were treated as inapplicable. The impugned amount was therefore sustained as unexplained investment under section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the assessee's challenge failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 08 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791846