<?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>2025 (3) TMI 1756 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469365</link>
    <description>Cash deposits credited to bank accounts in the assessee&#039;s name were treated as unexplained money under section 69A because the assessee failed to support the claim that the funds belonged to a third person with satisfactory evidence. The Tribunal held that, without a credible and consistent explanation of the nature and source of the deposits, the statutory onus under section 69A remained undischarged. The addition was therefore upheld and the assessee&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2026 23:25:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=907101" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 1756 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469365</link>
      <description>Cash deposits credited to bank accounts in the assessee&#039;s name were treated as unexplained money under section 69A because the assessee failed to support the claim that the funds belonged to a third person with satisfactory evidence. The Tribunal held that, without a credible and consistent explanation of the nature and source of the deposits, the statutory onus under section 69A remained undischarged. The addition was therefore upheld and the assessee&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469365</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>