Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1461 to 1480 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4814 
Join Channel 
