Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
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 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
