<?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>Explained NRE remittances defeat unexplained investment additions where foreign income and savings are duly evidenced.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99947</link>
    <description>Remittances to Indian NRE accounts were held explained where the assessee produced tax residency certificates, foreign tax returns, bank statements and Indian account records showing long-standing foreign income and accumulated savings. The Tribunal found that the funds were transferred through banking channels with a direct nexus to the foreign bank account, so the explanation could not be rejected merely for non-compliance at assessment stage or for comparing remittances with the wrong income period. Because the remittances were satisfactorily explained, the linked investment in immovable property was also not treated as unexplained. The additions under section 69 were deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2026 08:31:08 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 May 2026 08:31:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=902817" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Explained NRE remittances defeat unexplained investment additions where foreign income and savings are duly evidenced.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99947</link>
      <description>Remittances to Indian NRE accounts were held explained where the assessee produced tax residency certificates, foreign tax returns, bank statements and Indian account records showing long-standing foreign income and accumulated savings. The Tribunal found that the funds were transferred through banking channels with a direct nexus to the foreign bank account, so the explanation could not be rejected merely for non-compliance at assessment stage or for comparing remittances with the wrong income period. Because the remittances were satisfactorily explained, the linked investment in immovable property was also not treated as unexplained. The additions under section 69 were deleted.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2026 08:31:08 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99947</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>