https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347723 The court ruled in favor of the respondent-assessee on all three questions: 1) the letter disclosing income post-search did not qualify as a statement under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act; 2) undisclosed income for the block period should be based on material found during the search, not post-search declarations; and 3) the source of funds for unrecorded transactions was explained as initial capital and trading profits. The appeal was dismissed with no costs, emphasizing adherence to legal provisions and precedents in determining tax liabilities during block assessments. en-us Tue, 18 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Sep 2018 15:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347723 The court ruled in favor of the respondent-assessee on all three questions: 1) the letter disclosing income post-search did not qualify as a statement under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act; 2) undisclosed income for the block period should be based on material found during the search, not post-search declarations; and 3) the source of funds for unrecorded transactions was explained as initial capital and trading profits. The appeal was dismissed with no costs, emphasizing adherence to legal provisions and precedents in determining tax liabilities during block assessments. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 18 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347723