https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458563 The ITAT Mumbai ruled on three issues in this search and seizure case. First, regarding cash payment for studio acquisition, the tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s deletion, finding the addition was properly based on seized documents and voluntary admissions by the assessee and her mother, rejecting the mother's subsequent retraction. Second, concerning undisclosed gifts, the tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s addition of Rs. 40 lacs for a watch received as perquisite under section 28(4), noting it was connected to an advertisement agreement. Third, on an assessment under section 153A, the tribunal admitted an additional ground and remanded the matter to the AO, citing the Continental Warehousing precedent that additions require incriminating material found during search. en-us Tue, 16 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Nov 2024 19:52:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458563 The ITAT Mumbai ruled on three issues in this search and seizure case. First, regarding cash payment for studio acquisition, the tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s deletion, finding the addition was properly based on seized documents and voluntary admissions by the assessee and her mother, rejecting the mother's subsequent retraction. Second, concerning undisclosed gifts, the tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s addition of Rs. 40 lacs for a watch received as perquisite under section 28(4), noting it was connected to an advertisement agreement. Third, on an assessment under section 153A, the tribunal admitted an additional ground and remanded the matter to the AO, citing the Continental Warehousing precedent that additions require incriminating material found during search. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 16 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458563