Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.37 seconds)
Rajesh vs . Kartik Behera Cc No. 12941//17 Page No. ... on 1 May, 2019 cites

Rajesh Samundre vs State Of Chhattisgarh 32 ... on 28 September, 2018

22. Ld. Counsel for accused also argued that complainant admitted in his Rajesh Vs. Kartik Behera CC No. 12941//17 Page no. 10 of 12 cross-examination that his annual income was Rs. 8 lacs to Rs. 10 lacs, however he did not file ITR and deposited only Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- in bank account. It was argued that same makes the amount of loan given as unaccounted money and not recoverable in proceedings under Section 138 of the Act. However, this argument of Ld. Counsel for accused is also bereft of any merit, as even if it is considered that complainant did not show the present loan in his ITR, such mere non-disclosure does not defeat his claim. It is trite law that the provisions of Section 269SS of Income Tax Act, 1961, prohibit taking or accepting loan over amount of Rs. 20,000/- in cash and do not make the amount of loan given in cash, unrecoverable in proceedings under Section 138 of the Act.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 Next