Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
901 to 920 of 96262 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.