Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5741 to 5760 of 96257 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.