<?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>1962 (8) TMI 103 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196910</link>
    <description>Cash credits recorded in an assessee&#039;s books, including entries in a third party&#039;s name, may be treated as undisclosed income if the explanation is unsatisfactory. The assessee carries the initial burden to prove the identity of the third party and produce material showing that the entry is genuine and not fictitious. Once a credible explanation is supported by surrounding circumstances, the burden shifts to the revenue to establish that the amount still represents suppressed income. On the stated facts, the connected assessment treatment and later assessment evidence supported the assessee&#039;s explanation, and a minor date discrepancy was insufficient to displace it; the credits were therefore not treated as the assessee&#039;s undisclosed income.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Dec 2017 10:19:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=500390" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (8) TMI 103 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196910</link>
      <description>Cash credits recorded in an assessee&#039;s books, including entries in a third party&#039;s name, may be treated as undisclosed income if the explanation is unsatisfactory. The assessee carries the initial burden to prove the identity of the third party and produce material showing that the entry is genuine and not fictitious. Once a credible explanation is supported by surrounding circumstances, the burden shifts to the revenue to establish that the amount still represents suppressed income. On the stated facts, the connected assessment treatment and later assessment evidence supported the assessee&#039;s explanation, and a minor date discrepancy was insufficient to displace it; the credits were therefore not treated as the assessee&#039;s undisclosed income.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196910</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>