https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202218 The High Court upheld the validity of a search conducted under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, stating that the warrant of authorization issued in favor of the Additional Director of Income-tax was valid. However, the Court rejected the explanation provided for the possession of jewellery worth Rs. 2,96,800, finding discrepancies in a will presented by the assessee. The inclusion of Rs. 30,000 as unexplained income of the assessee's wife was set aside, as the Court acknowledged the plausibility of the amount being saved from household expenses. The appeal was partly allowed, primarily due to the exclusion of Rs. 30,000 as unexplained income. en-us Wed, 30 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202218 The High Court upheld the validity of a search conducted under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, stating that the warrant of authorization issued in favor of the Additional Director of Income-tax was valid. However, the Court rejected the explanation provided for the possession of jewellery worth Rs. 2,96,800, finding discrepancies in a will presented by the assessee. The inclusion of Rs. 30,000 as unexplained income of the assessee's wife was set aside, as the Court acknowledged the plausibility of the amount being saved from household expenses. The appeal was partly allowed, primarily due to the exclusion of Rs. 30,000 as unexplained income. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 30 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202218