<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1998 (2) TMI 105 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17070</link>
    <description>Where valuable gold articles are found in an assessee&#039;s possession, ownership may be presumed and the burden shifts to the assessee to rebut that presumption and prove acquisition in a different assessment year. On the facts discussed, the assessee produced no cogent evidence to show that the articles belonged to someone else or were acquired in another year, and an earlier statement did not support the claimed 1972 acquisition. The illegality of retaining contraband does not, by itself, negate ownership for tax purposes. The discussion concludes that the deletion of the addition under section 69A was erroneous and that the unexplained value remained assessable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:52:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=56070" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (2) TMI 105 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17070</link>
      <description>Where valuable gold articles are found in an assessee&#039;s possession, ownership may be presumed and the burden shifts to the assessee to rebut that presumption and prove acquisition in a different assessment year. On the facts discussed, the assessee produced no cogent evidence to show that the articles belonged to someone else or were acquired in another year, and an earlier statement did not support the claimed 1972 acquisition. The illegality of retaining contraband does not, by itself, negate ownership for tax purposes. The discussion concludes that the deletion of the addition under section 69A was erroneous and that the unexplained value remained assessable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17070</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>