Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
CBDT Instruction No. 1916, though framed for non-seizure of jewellery during search, was treated as a relevant guideline recognising customary family holdings of jewellery. The Tribunal accepted that jewellery within the prescribed limits could not be regarded as unexplained investment merely because it was found during search, especially where the assessee furnished explanations supported by family holdings, a wealth-tax disclosure for the HUF, purchase bills, and statements recorded during search and assessment. On that basis, the addition under unexplained investment was directed to be deleted to the extent covered by the instruction.
CBDT Instruction No. 1916, though framed for non-seizure of jewellery during search, was treated as a relevant guideline recognising customary family holdings of jewellery. The Tribunal accepted that jewellery within the prescribed limits could not be regarded as unexplained investment merely because it was found during search, especially where the assessee furnished explanations supported by family holdings, a wealth-tax disclosure for the HUF, purchase bills, and statements recorded during search and assessment. On that basis, the addition under unexplained investment was directed to be deleted to the extent covered by the instruction.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.