Chuharmal vs cit 1988 172 itr 250
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 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
Did you know?
WebOct 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)). WebA similar question arose before the Supreme Court in Chuharmal vs. CIT (1988) 70 CTR (SC) 88 : (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC), and while affirming the view of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the aforesaid view was taken and the matter was decided against the assessee.
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 ... 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.
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: WebBench: Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J) PETITIONER: CHUHARMAL S/O TAKARMAL MOHNANI Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, M.P., BHOPAL DATE OF …
WebMar 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 …
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 … can retaker top the board examWebIn 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 ... flange on a sink stopperWebJun 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 … can retainers give you a headacheWebAnnammal And Ors. vs Chellakutti on 31 July, 1962. Equivalent citations: AIR 1963 Mad 300, (1963) IMLJ 154. Author: R Iyer. Bench: S R Iyer, K Kutti. JUDGMENT … can retainers get moldyWebMay 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 … flange on a beamWebDelhi 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? can retaining water cause swellingWebJul 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. flange on beam