site stats

Chuharmal vs cit 1988 172 itr 250

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 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 …

Is Section 132(4A) a free getaway pass for the assessees - Lakshmisri

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 ... WebJul 25, 2003 · Citation: 2003-LL-0725-5: Appellant Name: ANANDILAL: Respondent Name: ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX: Court: ITAT: Relevant Act: Income-tax: Date of Order: 25/07/2003 red lion tring https://corcovery.com

M/s. Intime Credit & Holding Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi v. ITO, New …

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 ... 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 … WebWajid 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 … richard merck

Page 6 – itatonline.org

Category:Lakshmanan Chettiar And Anr. vs Chidambaram Chettiar And Ors.

Tags:Chuharmal vs cit 1988 172 itr 250

Chuharmal vs cit 1988 172 itr 250

K.P Zeenath, Calicut v. ACIT, Calicut Income Tax Appellate …

WebBench: Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J) PETITIONER: CHUHARMAL S/O TAKARMAL MOHNANI Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, M.P., BHOPAL DATE OF … WebAll groups and messages ... ...

Chuharmal vs cit 1988 172 itr 250

Did you know?

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 WebMay 2, 1988 · Citation. 1988-LL-0502. Appellant Name. CHUHARMAL. Respondent Name. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. Court. SUPREME COURT. Relevant Act.

WebThe SC in case of CHUHARMAL VS. CIT ( 1988) 172 ITR 250, has held that the provisions of Evidence Act are not applicable to the income tax proceedings, merely means that the … 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 …

WebThe Revenue, to proceed against the assessee, must have definite information with regard to the assessee being in possession of monies or holding investment. This is in view of th WebGet free access to the complete judgment in Commissioner Of Income Tax v. India Sea Foods. on CaseMine.

WebGet free access to the complete judgment in Chandra Kala Sharma v. Ito on CaseMine.

WebApr 6, 2024 · Chuharmal Vs CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250 Smt. Srilekha Banerjee and others vs CIT 1964 AIR 697 Rajendran & Ors vs. ACIT (2006) 204 CTR (Mad) 9 Hacienda Farms … red lion train stationWebApr 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. red lion tree farmWebIn 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 … richard mercedesWebJul 11, 2010 · However, the court also clarified later, in Chuharmal vs CIT (172 ITR 250 at 255 SC), that when the taxing authorities are desirous of invoking the principles of the Evidence Act in proceedings before them, they are not prevented from doing so. richard meredith ahdbWebMay 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 … red lion ts20 1alWebOct 8, 2024 · 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)). red lion truck stoprichard meredick md