<?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 (7) TMI 782 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794896</link>
    <description>Excess cash and stock identified during a survey at a jewellery business may be treated as business income where the records show regular business operations, disclosure in the books and return, and no independent source outside that business. On that reasoning, Section 69A treatment and the higher rate under Section 115BBE are presented as inapplicable. The material also discusses condonation of a 161-day filing delay where the appellate order was sent to a former auditor&#039;s email address, effective notice was not received, and the delay was supported by a bona fide explanation without negligence. The stated position is that the amounts should be assessed as business income.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 08:26:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=911542" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 782 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794896</link>
      <description>Excess cash and stock identified during a survey at a jewellery business may be treated as business income where the records show regular business operations, disclosure in the books and return, and no independent source outside that business. On that reasoning, Section 69A treatment and the higher rate under Section 115BBE are presented as inapplicable. The material also discusses condonation of a 161-day filing delay where the appellate order was sent to a former auditor&#039;s email address, effective notice was not received, and the delay was supported by a bona fide explanation without negligence. The stated position is that the amounts should be assessed as business income.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794896</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>