https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63214 Search-based additions were rejected where seized papers and surrounding facts showed that the pawning and commission activity was carried on by the assessees in their individual capacity, with no proof of a Hindu undivided family nucleus for that business. The disclosed agricultural income and opening capital were accepted because documentary evidence of landholding, cultivation, crops, leases and sales supported the figures, and the estimates were found reasonable rather than conjectural. The Hindu undivided family's agricultural income was also upheld as consistent with the books and the progressive pattern of disclosures. en-us Fri, 19 May 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Jan 2011 15:05:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63214 Search-based additions were rejected where seized papers and surrounding facts showed that the pawning and commission activity was carried on by the assessees in their individual capacity, with no proof of a Hindu undivided family nucleus for that business. The disclosed agricultural income and opening capital were accepted because documentary evidence of landholding, cultivation, crops, leases and sales supported the figures, and the estimates were found reasonable rather than conjectural. The Hindu undivided family's agricultural income was also upheld as consistent with the books and the progressive pattern of disclosures. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Fri, 19 May 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63214