<?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>2000 (10) TMI 176 - ITAT BANGALORE-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57807</link>
    <description>Unexplained jewellery addition was deleted because the facts were identical to connected matters already decided by the Tribunal for the same assessment years, and that earlier deletion was followed. Alleged unexplained gifts received through cheques were also deleted because the gifts were made at the time of marriage, the cheques were honoured, and the Department failed to show that the cash deposited in the donors&#039; bank accounts originated from the assessee; on those facts, the donee was not required to explain the donors&#039; source of funds. Both additions were therefore not sustained and the Department&#039;s appeals failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Dec 2010 16:03:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=96265" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (10) TMI 176 - ITAT BANGALORE-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57807</link>
      <description>Unexplained jewellery addition was deleted because the facts were identical to connected matters already decided by the Tribunal for the same assessment years, and that earlier deletion was followed. Alleged unexplained gifts received through cheques were also deleted because the gifts were made at the time of marriage, the cheques were honoured, and the Department failed to show that the cash deposited in the donors&#039; bank accounts originated from the assessee; on those facts, the donee was not required to explain the donors&#039; source of funds. Both additions were therefore not sustained and the Department&#039;s appeals failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57807</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>