Condonation of Delay: directoral disputes and pending company proceedings can constitute reasonable cause, allowing a belated return to be treated as ...
Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 upheld; faceless assessments subject to revision when AO fails requisite enquiries, remitted for fresh asse...
Limited scope of processing under section 143(1): enhancement without show cause is unsustainable; remand for residency, taxation and TDS verification...
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.