Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (1.93 seconds)Section 68 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Second Income-Tax Officer vs Grahalakshmi And Co. on 29 March, 1982
In his opinion, the said hundi was negotiable and the document itself described it as hundi and, therefore, there was no merit in the assessee's contention that the document was not a hundi but a promissory note and that Section 69D could not have been applied to it. He pointed out that the facts in the case of Grahalakshmi & Co. (supra) were altogether different. There it was a case of promissory note and the Tribunal had given a positive finding on this point after examining in detail the nature of the document involved in that case. The same could not be said of the facts of the present case.
Section 40A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 69 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 69C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs S.C. Ghosal on 27 April, 1976
In view of this the Income-tax Officer had held that the facts in the case of S.C. Ghosal (supra) did not apply to this case as the transaction was not genuine. There was no confirmation from Shri Surendra Kumar and there was no entry in the books of creditor. The Income-tax Officer in the alternative held that the creditor being a non-identifiable person, the genuineness of the credit was not established and even provisions of Section 68 were applicable. He further referred to the fact that in certain other cases the amounts had been surrendered by the borrowers.
1