<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1972 (6) TMI 10 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8657</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found discrepancies in account books, unreliable solicitor testimony, and denial by Nichani &amp;amp; Co., leading to the conclusion that alleged hundi loans of Rs. 95,000 were not genuine. The Tribunal upheld the decision to treat the amount as income from undisclosed sources, disbelieving the solicitor&#039;s evidence. The rule was discharged with costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jun 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 May 2009 19:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=47700" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (6) TMI 10 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8657</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found discrepancies in account books, unreliable solicitor testimony, and denial by Nichani &amp;amp; Co., leading to the conclusion that alleged hundi loans of Rs. 95,000 were not genuine. The Tribunal upheld the decision to treat the amount as income from undisclosed sources, disbelieving the solicitor&#039;s evidence. The rule was discharged with costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jun 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8657</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>