https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18971 Ownership and construction of a document seized in search, together with the scope of section 132(4A), raised a question of law where the Tribunal had found that annexure-C-23 did not belong to the assessee-firm and had deleted additions based on it. On prima facie examination, the High Court observed that the legal correctness of that conclusion and the evidentiary use of the seized document were open to question. The matter was not decided on merits; instead, the court directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the stated question of law to the High Court under section 256(2) for opinion. en-us Thu, 09 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Nov 2009 11:27:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18971 Ownership and construction of a document seized in search, together with the scope of section 132(4A), raised a question of law where the Tribunal had found that annexure-C-23 did not belong to the assessee-firm and had deleted additions based on it. On prima facie examination, the High Court observed that the legal correctness of that conclusion and the evidentiary use of the seized document were open to question. The matter was not decided on merits; instead, the court directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the stated question of law to the High Court under section 256(2) for opinion. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 09 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18971