Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
