International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
Passenger baggage re-export requires true declaration and cannot be granted indirectly through discretionary redemption of undeclared prohibited goods...
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 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
