Compromise-and-arrangement extensions may accommodate debt assignment where creditor commercial judgment supports value maximisation and avoids proced...
Delayed-payment surcharge is not taxable tolerance consideration where it penalises default, while meter testing follows electricity distribution trea...
Sufficient cause for delayed revenue income-tax appeals requires bona fides, due diligence and a credible explanation; otherwise limitation bars appea...
Inverted-duty-structure refunds remain available for unchanged-rate apparel supplies despite trader status and require tax-period-specific computation...
Foundational assessment satisfaction is essential before initiating penalty for cash receipt of immovable-property sale consideration under section 27...
ITAT held that additions under section 69A for unexplained jewelry investments were unsustainable. The AO's additions were based on information obtained from Lokayukta under section 133(6), which was not incriminating material seized during search proceedings under section 132. The tribunal emphasized that for assessment under section 153A, additions can only be made based on seized materials. No physical jewelry was found during search, and the affidavit documents did not conclusively prove undisclosed investments. The assessee's declarations before Lokayukta regarding jewelry ownership were consistent across years. Consequently, the tribunal deleted all substantive and protective additions related to jewelry investments for the assessment years in question.
ITAT held that additions under section 69A for unexplained jewelry investments were unsustainable. The AO's additions were based on information obtained from Lokayukta under section 133(6), which was not incriminating material seized during search proceedings under section 132. The tribunal emphasized that for assessment under section 153A, additions can only be made based on seized materials. No physical jewelry was found during search, and the affidavit documents did not conclusively prove undisclosed investments. The assessee's declarations before Lokayukta regarding jewelry ownership were consistent across years. Consequently, the tribunal deleted all substantive and protective additions related to jewelry investments for the assessment years in question.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.