https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277238 Tribunal's inference that a portion of encashed high-denomination notes represented undisclosed income was upheld: contemporaneous receipts exceeding payments, lack of internal book entries identifying the notes, and acceptance or rejection of competing affidavits supported treating Rs.30,000 as income from undisclosed sources. Separately, the High Court cannot decide liability to excess profits tax and business profits tax because Section 66(2) jurisdiction requires a prior refusal under Section 66(1) after an application by the assessee; absent such antecedent reference request, the Court has no power to direct a statement of case on that question. en-us Tue, 10 Mar 1953 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Nov 2018 16:10:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277238 Tribunal's inference that a portion of encashed high-denomination notes represented undisclosed income was upheld: contemporaneous receipts exceeding payments, lack of internal book entries identifying the notes, and acceptance or rejection of competing affidavits supported treating Rs.30,000 as income from undisclosed sources. Separately, the High Court cannot decide liability to excess profits tax and business profits tax because Section 66(2) jurisdiction requires a prior refusal under Section 66(1) after an application by the assessee; absent such antecedent reference request, the Court has no power to direct a statement of case on that question. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 10 Mar 1953 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277238