Refund claim dismissed as time-barred under s.142(5); non-obstante clause read restrictively, merits not decided, self-assessment payments not mere de...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
9201 to 9220 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT partly allowed the appeal in respect of additions under s.69A r.w.s. and s.115BBE arising from a search at common family premises. The AO's jewellery additions were deleted by the CIT(A) on factual analysis that the jewellery belonged to the family; Revenue did not challenge that finding, rendering it final. As to wrist watches, the AO had attributed all watches to the assessee, but CIT(A) found they were located in a shared residence occupied by multiple family members and, given the family's status and absence of purchase particulars, declined to uphold additions based on contemporary market valuation. The net result is deletion of jewellery additions and rejection of watch additions, with the appeal therefore partly allowed.
ITAT partly allowed the appeal in respect of additions under s.69A r.w.s. and s.115BBE arising from a search at common family premises. The AO's jewellery additions were deleted by the CIT(A) on factual analysis that the jewellery belonged to the family; Revenue did not challenge that finding, rendering it final. As to wrist watches, the AO had attributed all watches to the assessee, but CIT(A) found they were located in a shared residence occupied by multiple family members and, given the family's status and absence of purchase particulars, declined to uphold additions based on contemporary market valuation. The net result is deletion of jewellery additions and rejection of watch additions, with the appeal therefore partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
