Chuharmal vs cit 1988 172 itr 250

Author: qnhv

August undefined, 2024

WebDelhi H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, to the extent it was levied by reference to the addition of Rs. 19,000 made in the assessment? 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.

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

WebGet free access to the complete judgment in Commissioner Of Income Tax v. India Sea Foods. on CaseMine. 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 church of ireland middletown

Technicalities of Section 68 to 69 D w

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. 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 30, 2024 · CHUHARMAL V. CIT, 2 May, 1988. 1988 AIR 1384, 1988 SCR (3) 788 and 172 ITR 250 . Section 110 of the Evidence Act provides that where a person was found … dewalt tstak bluetooth radio

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT …

Chuharmal S/O Takarmal Mohnani vs Commissioner Of …

WebJul 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. 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 church of ireland mother and baby homesWebGet free access to the complete judgment in M/s. Intime Credit & Holding Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi v. ITO, New Delhi on CaseMine. church of ireland historical society

"WebDec 15, 2010 · As rightly pointed out by the assessee even before the ld. CIT (A), the fact of the assessee becoming a major on 7.1.2000 is borne out by the assessees date of birth, which finds mention in the return of income in Form 2B … " - Chuharmal vs cit 1988 172 itr 250

Chuharmal vs cit 1988 172 itr 250

Lakshmanan Chettiar And Anr. vs Chidambaram Chettiar And Ors.

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

Did you know?

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 … 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 …

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 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 …

WebCreating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. Once you create your profile, you will be able to: WebJun 30, 2024 · Attention is invited to the decision of Chuharmal v. CIT (1988) 172 !TR 250 (SC) where it was held that the Evidence Act does not apply to proceedings under the …

WebThe CIT (Appeals), therefore, confirmed the levy of penalty in respect of the concealed income of Rs. 5,73,044. The CIT (Appeals) also relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Chuharmal v. CIT[1988] 172 ITR 250/38 Taxman 190, CIT v.

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 … church of ireland portglenoneWebIn 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 assesseeâ€™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 ... church of ireland graveyardsWebApr 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 … church of ireland portrushWebMar 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 ... church of ireland newtownstewartWebThe 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 … church of ireland rahenyWebChuharmal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC). • In the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd v. church of ireland parish registersWebMay 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. church of ireland lisburn