<?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>1997 (6) TMI 22 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17419</link>
    <description>Income from a business standing in another person&#039;s name may be assessed in the assessee&#039;s hands where the surrounding primary facts show the named proprietor was only a name lender and the business was in substance benami. The Tribunal relied on seized lease documents, bank dealings, guarantees, advances, withdrawals, and papers recovered from the assessee&#039;s bedroom to conclude that the third party lacked independent means to own and run the jewellery business. The court treated that conclusion as a pure finding of fact drawn from cumulative evidence and noted that the statutory presumption arising from search material under section 132(4A) remained unrebutted; such a finding is not disturbed in reference unless perverse or unsupported by evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:44:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=56419" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (6) TMI 22 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17419</link>
      <description>Income from a business standing in another person&#039;s name may be assessed in the assessee&#039;s hands where the surrounding primary facts show the named proprietor was only a name lender and the business was in substance benami. The Tribunal relied on seized lease documents, bank dealings, guarantees, advances, withdrawals, and papers recovered from the assessee&#039;s bedroom to conclude that the third party lacked independent means to own and run the jewellery business. The court treated that conclusion as a pure finding of fact drawn from cumulative evidence and noted that the statutory presumption arising from search material under section 132(4A) remained unrebutted; such a finding is not disturbed in reference unless perverse or unsupported by evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17419</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>