Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : DCIT Vs Suresh Kanaji (ITAT Bangalore)
Related Assessment Year : 2018-19
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
DCIT Vs Suresh Kanaji (ITAT Bangalore) Conclusion: Addition made under Section 69B concerning seized jewellery was deleted as gold jewellery found during a search at the residence of the taxpayer was within the permissible limits prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 1916, and therefore, could not be treated as an unexplained investment. Held: Assessee was a Bangalore-based contractor, whose residence was searched by Income Tax authorities. During the search, officials discovered 1,724.82 grams of gold jewellery, out of which 612.86 grams were seized on the ground that the taxpayer failed to expla...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Ads Free tax News and Updates
Search Post by Date
April 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930