This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Jewellery as per CBDT instruction may be treated as unexplained investment
Case Law Details
- Case Name
- V.G.P.Ravidas Vs ACIT (Madras High Court)
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Related Assessment Year
- 2009-10
- Courts
- All High Courts, Madras High Court
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Log in.
Advertisement
V.G.P.Ravidas Vs Asst.CIT (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court upholds assessment of excess gold jewellery as unexplained investment; rejects plea based on Board Instruction dated 11.5.1994.
The Board Instruction dated 11.5.1994 stipulates the circumstances under which excess gold jewellery or ornaments could be seized and where it need not be seized. It does not state that it should not be treated as unexplained investment in jewellery. In this case, the Original Authority has correctly included the excess jewellery other than what has been found in the wealth tax assessment...
