Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
ITAT deleted additions for unaccounted income from contractor,...
ITAT deletes additions for unaccounted income and unexplained jewelry following Rajeshwar Singh Yadav precedent and accepting engagement gift explanation
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
ITAT deleted additions for unaccounted income from contractor, following precedent in Rajeshwar Singh Yadav case where similar factual circumstances existed involving Executive Engineer receiving alleged payments from same contractor. No substantial material differentiated appellant's case from established precedent. Regarding unexplained jewelry addition of Rs. 2,76,101 for 76.064 gms, ITAT accepted appellant's explanation that ornaments were engagement gifts from prospective in-laws when daughter got engaged. Wife's contradictory statement during search attributed to stress and husband's absence. ITAT found mathematical approach for partial jewelry addition imprudent when remaining 1651.046 gms adequately explained per CBDT Instruction 1916/1994, noting unreasonableness of expecting precise explanations from public servant with multiple family members. Both additions deleted and appellant's grounds sustained for relevant assessment years.
ITAT deleted additions for unaccounted income from contractor, following precedent in Rajeshwar Singh Yadav case where similar factual circumstances existed involving Executive Engineer receiving alleged payments from same contractor. No substantial material differentiated appellant's case from established precedent. Regarding unexplained jewelry addition of Rs. 2,76,101 for 76.064 gms, ITAT accepted appellant's explanation that ornaments were engagement gifts from prospective in-laws when daughter got engaged. Wife's contradictory statement during search attributed to stress and husband's absence. ITAT found mathematical approach for partial jewelry addition imprudent when remaining 1651.046 gms adequately explained per CBDT Instruction 1916/1994, noting unreasonableness of expecting precise explanations from public servant with multiple family members. Both additions deleted and appellant's grounds sustained for relevant assessment years.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
