https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63473 A statutory immunity scheme for foreign remittances required strict compliance with the prescribed declaration, because the declaration operated as the safeguard identifying eligible recipients and the scheme permitted no extension or condonation for non-compliance. Rule 46A does not allow an appellant to fill gaps in the original record at the appellate stage; additional evidence must be justified by sufficient cause and genuine inability to produce it earlier. Where immunity is unavailable, foreign remittances must be independently explained by proof of donor identity, financial capacity and transaction genuineness, since banking channels alone do not establish a non-taxable receipt. Separate relief on low drawings depends on the factual adequacy of household withdrawals and surrounding circumstances. en-us Fri, 03 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 May 2017 17:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63473 A statutory immunity scheme for foreign remittances required strict compliance with the prescribed declaration, because the declaration operated as the safeguard identifying eligible recipients and the scheme permitted no extension or condonation for non-compliance. Rule 46A does not allow an appellant to fill gaps in the original record at the appellate stage; additional evidence must be justified by sufficient cause and genuine inability to produce it earlier. Where immunity is unavailable, foreign remittances must be independently explained by proof of donor identity, financial capacity and transaction genuineness, since banking channels alone do not establish a non-taxable receipt. Separate relief on low drawings depends on the factual adequacy of household withdrawals and surrounding circumstances. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 03 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63473