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Your email address will not be published.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 *

Search Post by Date
June 2026
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930