Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Post-search scrutiny assessment remains available where original assessment limitation is unexpired, permitting timely completion under regular assess...
Validity of reopening of assessment - Addition u/s 69 for...
Assessment reopened for undisclosed jewellery purchase. Assessee failed to prove legitimacy. Onus on appellant to show credibility. Property income taxed.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Validity of reopening of assessment - Addition u/s 69 for purchase of jewellery as undisclosed investments. Assessee had substantial transactions but did not file income return. Failed to substantiate jewellery purchase with credible evidence. Onus on appellant to prove genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity not adequately discharged. Bill in assessee's name. Property purchased jointly, no evidence of beneficiary or income. Assessee deemed first owner with beneficial ownership. TDS deducted implies 50% share. Income from property considered u/s 56(2) due to lack of consideration. Dismissed appellant's arguments. ITAT affirmed CIT(A) decision.
Validity of reopening of assessment - Addition u/s 69 for purchase of jewellery as undisclosed investments. Assessee had substantial transactions but did not file income return. Failed to substantiate jewellery purchase with credible evidence. Onus on appellant to prove genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity not adequately discharged. Bill in assessee's name. Property purchased jointly, no evidence of beneficiary or income. Assessee deemed first owner with beneficial ownership. TDS deducted implies 50% share. Income from property considered u/s 56(2) due to lack of consideration. Dismissed appellant's arguments. ITAT affirmed CIT(A) decision.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
