https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170925 The High Court ruled that there was no legal evidence to support that the profits were earned by the assessee family rather than by Nandlal and Venilal individually. Additionally, there was insufficient evidence to prove concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate income particulars under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The court held in favor of the assessee, concluding that the burden of proof was not met by the Department. The non-applicant was ordered to bear the costs of the application, including counsel fees of Rs. 150. en-us Fri, 07 Sep 1956 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Jul 2015 12:26:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170925 The High Court ruled that there was no legal evidence to support that the profits were earned by the assessee family rather than by Nandlal and Venilal individually. Additionally, there was insufficient evidence to prove concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate income particulars under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The court held in favor of the assessee, concluding that the burden of proof was not met by the Department. The non-applicant was ordered to bear the costs of the application, including counsel fees of Rs. 150. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 07 Sep 1956 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170925