https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76608 A jurisdictional objection to the jewellery addition had to be decided first because the Tribunal had not addressed the alleged absence of a search warrant for the locker. The jewellery addition was therefore not capable of final sustenance until that issue was examined, and the matter was remanded. The household goods additions also required fresh consideration because the Tribunal had not determined whether the items fell within the block period, whether they could have been acquired from regularly assessed income, or the relevance of CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994. Those findings were set aside for reconsideration on the evidence. en-us Mon, 19 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Jan 2013 11:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76608 A jurisdictional objection to the jewellery addition had to be decided first because the Tribunal had not addressed the alleged absence of a search warrant for the locker. The jewellery addition was therefore not capable of final sustenance until that issue was examined, and the matter was remanded. The household goods additions also required fresh consideration because the Tribunal had not determined whether the items fell within the block period, whether they could have been acquired from regularly assessed income, or the relevance of CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994. Those findings were set aside for reconsideration on the evidence. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 19 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76608