https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256729 The court clarified that income disclosed in returns filed before a search, even if late, should not be treated as undisclosed income in block assessments. It upheld the acceptance of agricultural income previously declared. However, it denied deductions under sections 54 and 54F, ruling that a co-owner's share in a residential house constitutes ownership. The court remanded the valuation of closing stock for reconsideration, emphasizing the need to consider cost or market price. It treated an unexplained amount as undisclosed income but upheld the assessee's position on an undisclosed investment in NSC. The appeals were disposed of with specific directions for reconsideration on certain issues. en-us Fri, 11 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Feb 2015 11:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256729 The court clarified that income disclosed in returns filed before a search, even if late, should not be treated as undisclosed income in block assessments. It upheld the acceptance of agricultural income previously declared. However, it denied deductions under sections 54 and 54F, ruling that a co-owner's share in a residential house constitutes ownership. The court remanded the valuation of closing stock for reconsideration, emphasizing the need to consider cost or market price. It treated an unexplained amount as undisclosed income but upheld the assessee's position on an undisclosed investment in NSC. The appeals were disposed of with specific directions for reconsideration on certain issues. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 11 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256729