Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.39 seconds)The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 276C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Collector Of Customs, Madras And Ors vs D. Bhoormul on 3 April, 1974
18. Mr. Indrakumar relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Customs v. D. Bhoormal, . There the court was considering with regard to Section 167(8) of the Customs Act. While considering the various provisions of the Act, the Supreme Court holds that in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act the Department is deemed to have discharged its burden if it adduces only so much evidence, circumstantial and direct as is sufficient to raise a presumption in its favour with regard to existence of the facts sought to be proved. The Supreme Court in the said case rules as under (page 867) :
Section 263 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Prem Dass vs Income Tax Officer on 9 February, 1999
20. We must also take notice of the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in Prem Dass v. ITO . That is a case of prosecution initiated against an assessee. The apex court noticed the application of Section 132(4A) with regard to criminal proceedings. The court ruled that the presumption in terms of Section 132(4A) is not available in view of the language used in Sections 276C and 277 of the Act to those proceedings. The court noticed that the wilful attempt to evade any tax under Section 276C is a positive act. The court ruled that in such circumstances mens rea is required to be established by the prosecution. Therefore, the court ruled that the same is not available in a matter arising under Sections 276C and 277 of the Act. The said judgment is distinguishable on facts. Therefore. we answer the first question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
D.D. Kapoor And G. Dalmia vs Commr. Of Income-Tax on 6 December, 1954
28. Sri Sarangan elaborated his argument by contending that there is no presumption in Hindu law that any business carried on by a member of the joint Hindu family is itself a joint family business. He relies on D. D. Kapoor v. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 348 (Patna). That was a case where the court was concerned with regard to the income of the eldest brother being shown in joint family accounts. The court ruled that that by itself is not sufficient to show that the income was of the joint family income.
Jainarayan Balabakas Of Khamgaon vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madhya ... on 7 September, 1956
The third judgment in Jainarayan Balabakas of Khamgaon v. CIT [1957] 31 ITR 271 (Nag). In that case the court was considering as to whether the mere fact that the joint family owned suitable funds is not sufficient to throw liability on the joint family, unless there is evidence to show that those funds were not used for the purpose of business. In the case on hand from the seized documents a presumption could certainly be drawn that the funds were used for the purpose of Matka business.
K. Ravindranathan Nair vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ernakulam on 30 November, 2000
35. Mr. Sarangan, relies on a latest judgment reported in K. Ravindranathan Nair v. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 178 (SC) to contend that the Tribunal is the final authority on finding of fact. The Supreme Court at page 180 reads as under :
Chandmull Rajgarhia vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar And ... on 3 February, 1966
The next judgment relied on by counsel is in Chandmull Rajgarhia v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 347 (Patna). In the said case the court was considering as to whether the need of the circumstantial presumption of blending joint family property arises. The court was considering with regard to sufficient nucleus with regard to presumption. The case revolves round a new acquisition being made for the joint family. The court accepted the inference from circumstances.