Chuharmal vs cit 1988 172 itr 250

Author: lgik

August undefined, 2024

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 … 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.

Distance Between Chennai to Chidambaram - Yatra

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

Delhi H.C : The assessee had not been able to rebut the statutory ...

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 … 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 … 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 … fitbit ionic refund amount australia

Why Is The Evidence Act So Critical For Income-tax

Chuharmal vs cit 1988 172 itr 250

Treatise On The Rule Of Evidence As Applicable To Direct …

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 … 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 …

Did you know?

Web(ITAT) Order on Bofors - The Hindu 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:

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. 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 …

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. 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.

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 ...

WebMay 2, 1988 · Citation. 1988-LL-0502. Appellant Name. CHUHARMAL. Respondent Name. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. Court. SUPREME COURT. Relevant Act. fitbit ionic return kitWebDelhi 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? fitbit ionic refund indiaWebMay 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 … can frontline plus for dogs be used on catsWebIn 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 ... fitbit ionic return instructionsWebJan 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 … fitbit ionic recall updateWebIn 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 fitbit ionic rückrufaktionWebGet free access to the complete judgment in Commissioner Of Income Tax v. India Sea Foods. on CaseMine. can front load washers be stacked