TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses appeal, affirms Tribunal decisions on gifts, jewellery, and stridhan.</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Inocme Tax (Central), Ludhiana Versus Naresh Kumar Kohli</h3> Commissioner of Inocme Tax (Central), Ludhiana Versus Naresh Kumar Kohli - [2015] 371 ITR 201 (P&H) Issues:1. Addition of non-genuine gifts in block assessment years2. Benefit of past savings for jewellery found in locker3. Allowance of jewellery as stridhan for wife4. Addition of unexplained jewellery found in lockerAnalysis:Issue 1:The Revenue challenged the Tribunal's order adding Rs. 4,92,325 for non-genuine gifts, contending it should not have been covered in the peak of unexplained credits. The Tribunal deleted this addition, stating it was already included in the Rs. 9,75,333 addition. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the need for substantial legal questions and found no violation of the Income-tax Act.Issue 2:Regarding the benefit of Rs. 4 lakhs as past savings for jewellery found in a locker, the Revenue argued it was incorrect as there were no records of withdrawals for jewellery purchase. However, the Tribunal granted this benefit, considering the jewellery belonged to the appellant. The Court affirmed this decision, stating the Tribunal rightly granted the past savings benefit.Issue 3:The Tribunal allowed 400 grams of jewellery as stridhan for the appellant's wife, despite a similar benefit granted to the appellant's father. The Court clarified that the benefit was correctly granted as per CBDT circular, and the benefit to the father was for ancestral jewellery, not the same as the wife's stridhan.Issue 4:The addition of Rs. 8,29,936 for unexplained jewellery found in a locker was deleted by the Tribunal, as it was claimed by another individual. The Court upheld this decision, stating the Tribunal's detailed consideration of evidence and the owner's claim justified the deletion of this addition. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's factual findings.In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal, ruling against the Revenue on all substantial legal questions raised, affirming the Tribunal's decisions on the issues related to non-genuine gifts, past savings benefit, stridhan allowance, and unexplained jewellery addition.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
