https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792563 In search-related jewellery disputes, CBDT Instruction No. 1916 and the family-wise allowance already granted were applied to test whether excess jewellery remained unexplained. The balance jewellery, after allowing the prescribed quantities for male and female family members, was treated as unexplained and the addition under section 69 was upheld. By contrast, a sister's claim to 300 grams of gold jewellery kept with the family for safe custody, supported by confirmation and her residence abroad, was accepted in full because the restriction to 70 grams lacked factual support. The appeal thus succeeded only to the extent of that jewellery claim. en-us Tue, 05 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 May 2026 08:29:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792563 In search-related jewellery disputes, CBDT Instruction No. 1916 and the family-wise allowance already granted were applied to test whether excess jewellery remained unexplained. The balance jewellery, after allowing the prescribed quantities for male and female family members, was treated as unexplained and the addition under section 69 was upheld. By contrast, a sister's claim to 300 grams of gold jewellery kept with the family for safe custody, supported by confirmation and her residence abroad, was accepted in full because the restriction to 70 grams lacked factual support. The appeal thus succeeded only to the extent of that jewellery claim. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 05 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792563