https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238732 The case involved an appeal by the department against the ITAT's decision on a partner's statement under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal upheld its decision, considering seized documents and the partner's statement. The A.O.'s estimation of GP rate and undisclosed investment led to additions in the firm's income, but the CIT(A) and Tribunal reduced these additions. The ownership and possession of seized jewellery were determined based on legal principles and the CBDT Circular. The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, ordering the release of seized items. Ultimately, the decision favored the assessee, upholding relief provided by the appellate authorities. en-us Fri, 25 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Apr 2026 11:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238732 The case involved an appeal by the department against the ITAT's decision on a partner's statement under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal upheld its decision, considering seized documents and the partner's statement. The A.O.'s estimation of GP rate and undisclosed investment led to additions in the firm's income, but the CIT(A) and Tribunal reduced these additions. The ownership and possession of seized jewellery were determined based on legal principles and the CBDT Circular. The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, ordering the release of seized items. Ultimately, the decision favored the assessee, upholding relief provided by the appellate authorities. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 25 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238732