“unexplained jewellery”

Raman Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed, with consequences to follow as per the determination of the grounds, as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2014-15 Raman Gupta, Vs Acit, F-73, Preet Vihar, Central Circle-17, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Abapg1217G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Ground No. 4 : That the addition of Rs. 9,05,640/- upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of unexplained jewellery is bad in law.” 3. Heard and perused the record. The ground wise findings are as follows; 4. Ground no 1; The relevant facts are that during ... give part relief it comes up that the total value of the jewellery Rs. 1.44 crores and the alleged unexplained jewellery addition sustained of 9,05,640/- is very negligible. The excess found in the diamond jewelry to the extent 61.92 cts and for which we consider the explanation

DCIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi vs. Suman Minda, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Returns of family members & HUF are more than what inventoried during the 1 search and therefore, the same could not be taxed as unexplained jewellery in the hands of the respondent/assessee. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent/ assessee Group was searched under section ... contended that the AO had not taxed any unexplained investment in jewellery; therefore, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that there was no unexplained jewellery was uncalled for. To buttress his arguments, the Ld. DR placed emphasis on the following operative part of the impugned order (page

Prem Prakash Sethi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle 14 New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, Ground No.1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year 2018-19

under: “1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the addition made by the assessing officer on account of unexplained jewellery u/s. 69A to the extent of Rs. 22,20,698/-. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding ... Pushpa Sethi - 500 gms. The CIT(A) has thus confirmed the additions attributable to remaining 603.97 gms 3 amounting to Rs.22,20,698/- as unexplained jewellery in the hands of the assessee under Section 69A of the Act. In this regard, the ld. counsel submitted that the remaining additions

Surpreet Singh Suri, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-6, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed and the issue on merit is

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2014-15

amount of seized cash and household expenses in the FY, till the date of search". However, while confirming the addition with regard to unexplained jewellery vide para 5, 10 inadvertently, the entire addition of Rs.2,37,08,076 including on account of unexplained cash of Rs.26,75,000 was confirmed ... made on account of unexplained cash ought to have been deleted while only addition of Rs.2,10,33,076 on account of unexplained jewellery ought to have been confirmed. Previously, application u/s 154 of 1.T. Act dated 03/10/2018 was filed before your honour as per copy enclosed at page

DCIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi vs. Renu Punj, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the addition of Rs. 1,73,17,945/- made on account of unexplained jewellery found on the residence premises and lockers of the assessee. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law, in not appreciating the fact that ... declared by the assessee in her WTR/VDIS disclosure and AO had already allowed the credit of the same while making additions on account of unexplained jewellery. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not appreciating the fact that the jewellery shown in the invoices

DCIT, Central Ciorcle-17, New Delhi vs. Pooja Punj, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the addition of Rs. 1,73,17,945/- made on account of unexplained jewellery found on the residence premises and lockers of the assessee. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law, in not appreciating the fact that ... declared by the assessee in her WTR/VDIS disclosure and AO had already allowed the credit of the same while making additions on account of unexplained jewellery. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not appreciating the fact that the jewellery shown in the invoices