Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
The High Court held that statements recorded u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are admissible evidence u/s 158BD read with Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and Section 131. In the present case, the husbands of the assessees made statements during search operations that the total investment in constructing the house property was Rs. 15 lakhs, though only Rs. 7 lakhs was accounted for. The assessees reiterated this fact on 03.05.1999. Such statements are presumed true unless the assessees plead that they were obtained forcibly, by coercion, or undue influence. The burden lies on the assessees to establish that the admission is incorrect or wrong. As the assessees failed to discharge this burden, the Tribunal rightly set aside the order passed by the CIT (Appeals), deciding against the assessees.
The High Court held that statements recorded u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are admissible evidence u/s 158BD read with Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and Section 131. In the present case, the husbands of the assessees made statements during search operations that the total investment in constructing the house property was Rs. 15 lakhs, though only Rs. 7 lakhs was accounted for. The assessees reiterated this fact on 03.05.1999. Such statements are presumed true unless the assessees plead that they were obtained forcibly, by coercion, or undue influence. The burden lies on the assessees to establish that the admission is incorrect or wrong. As the assessees failed to discharge this burden, the Tribunal rightly set aside the order passed by the CIT (Appeals), deciding against the assessees.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
