<?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>1960 (4) TMI 91 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276680</link>
    <description>Receipts credited in an assessee&#039;s accounts are taxable unless the assessee proves, with satisfactory evidence, that they are outside taxable income, and a bare claim that payments or jewellery were gifts made out of love and affection is insufficient. In the discussed reference, amounts received from Princess Sita Devi were treated as remuneration connected with services rendered because the assessee did not discharge the burden of proving a gift. On reopening, section 34 requires material on record capable of supporting a reasonable and honest belief that income escaped assessment through nondisclosure of material facts; mere suspicion is not enough. The analysis notes that reassessment was upheld where adequate material existed, while one reopening question remained unresolved pending a further statement of the case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Nov 2018 17:58:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=542035" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (4) TMI 91 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276680</link>
      <description>Receipts credited in an assessee&#039;s accounts are taxable unless the assessee proves, with satisfactory evidence, that they are outside taxable income, and a bare claim that payments or jewellery were gifts made out of love and affection is insufficient. In the discussed reference, amounts received from Princess Sita Devi were treated as remuneration connected with services rendered because the assessee did not discharge the burden of proving a gift. On reopening, section 34 requires material on record capable of supporting a reasonable and honest belief that income escaped assessment through nondisclosure of material facts; mere suspicion is not enough. The analysis notes that reassessment was upheld where adequate material existed, while one reopening question remained unresolved pending a further statement of the case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276680</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>