<?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 (4) TMI 2086 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471773</link>
    <description>Unexplained investment addition under Section 69 was sustained because the claimed cash advance from a proposed agricultural-land sale was unsupported during assessment. The receipt and agreement were first produced in appellate proceedings without explaining their earlier absence. As the sale did not materialise and the advance was repaid after five years, the claimed cash source remained unproved under the Section 292C presumption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2026 13:50:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=923825" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 2086 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471773</link>
      <description>Unexplained investment addition under Section 69 was sustained because the claimed cash advance from a proposed agricultural-land sale was unsupported during assessment. The receipt and agreement were first produced in appellate proceedings without explaining their earlier absence. As the sale did not materialise and the advance was repaid after five years, the claimed cash source remained unproved under the Section 292C presumption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471773</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>