site stats

Chuharmal vs cit 1988 172 itr 250

WebIn Ashok Kumar vs. CIT (1986) 53 CTR (MP) 226 : (1986) 160 ITR 497 (MP), the question that arose for decision was whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing to accept the assessee’s explanation given in respect of cash amounting to Rs. 16,000. ... In Chuharmal vs. CIT (1988) 70 CTR (SC) 88 : (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC), some wrist ... WebOn the other hand counsel for the State submitted, relying upon the decision of this Court in Willie (William) Slaney vs. State of Madhya Paradesh AIR 1956 SC 116 and State of …

Punjab & Haryana H.C : The onus of proving ownership of the …

WebIn Chuharmal's case [1988] 172 ITR 250 (SC), the facts, briefly, were that in January, 1974, on the basis of the order passed by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Jagpur, dated … WebApr 5, 2024 · Shanta Devi vs CIT (1988) 171 ITR 532 (P&H) Where Account books of partnership firm cannot be considered to be assessee- partner’s own book of account and cash credit found therein cannot be charged to tax as assessee-partner’s income u/s 68. assistant\u0027s h3 https://myfoodvalley.com

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT …

WebMay 10, 2024 · Chuharmal v. CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC) (255) Watches were seized from the bed room of the assessee. The assessee was held to be the owner. Applying … WebSupreme Court Of India Chuharmal vs. CIT Sections 69A, 271(1)(c) Expln. Asst. Year 1974-75 Sabyasachi Mukharji & S. Ranganathan, JJ. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1863 of 1986 WebJan 18, 2024 · The ld. CIT (A) in the case of Shri Mohinder Singh (seller) observed that he had received a sale consideration of Rs 2,46,30,000/- from the sale of his agricultural land from Shri Malkiat Singh, whereas, the sale deed was executed at much lesser rate. assistant\\u0027s hg

Case Law on Section 110 of Indian Evidence Act R.W.

Category:IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : …

Tags:Chuharmal vs cit 1988 172 itr 250

Chuharmal vs cit 1988 172 itr 250

Lakshmanan Chettiar And Anr. vs Chidambaram Chettiar And Ors.

WebBench: Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J) PETITIONER: CHUHARMAL S/O TAKARMAL MOHNANI Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, M.P., BHOPAL DATE OF … WebMar 12, 2016 · The expression ‘income’ under the Act, a term of wide import, is applicable to section 69A, among others, of the Act (refer: Chuharmal vs. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 250 (SC)). The assessee, claiming to have no foreign bank accounts, concedes subsequently (on the basis of a report by UBS AG, Zurich – which has been taken as part of the record) to ...

Chuharmal vs cit 1988 172 itr 250

Did you know?

WebJan 4, 2013 · The principle involved, as explained by the apex court in the case of Chuharmal v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 250 (SC), referring to section 110 of the Indian … WebPunjab & Haryana H.C : Whether the Tribunal was correct in rejecting the assessee’s contention that the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, gives rise to a separate charge as distinguished from the substantive provisions of s. 271 (1 ) (c) and that the provisions of the main s. 271(1)(c) having not been specifically invoked, penalty cannot …

WebMay 19, 2024 · In the case of Chuharmal, the Apex Court held that the wrist watches in possession of assessee which were seized during search proceedings under the Customs Act, represented concealed income of the assessee.

Web15. In Chuharmal vs. CIT, [1988] 172 ITR 250, some wrist watches were seized from the bedroom of the assessee. The Department found that the assessee was the owner of the … WebAll groups and messages ... ...

WebChuharmal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC). • In the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd v.

WebIn Chuharmal vs. CIT, [1988] 172 ITR 250, some wrist watches were seized from the bedroom of the assessee. The Department found that the assessee was the owner of the wrist watches and the High Court relied upon Section 110 of the Evidence Act which stipulates that when the question is whether any person is the assistant\u0027s hdWebWajid Ali Khan vs Puran Singh And Ors. on 11 July, 1924. Citedby 3 docs Sitaram Reddy vs Chinna Ram Reddy And Ors. on 16 April, 1958. Janabai Ammal vs T.A.S. Palani … assistant\\u0027s heWebMar 19, 2024 · It is necessary, therefore, to understand the importance and scope of the principles of cross examination in income tax proceedings. The Supreme Court in the … laokasti restaurant