<?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>1986 (4) TMI 28 - PATNA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26094</link>
    <description>The court held that the deposit of Rs. 2,77,471 in Bharat Bank was unexplained income as the explanations provided by the assessee were deemed unsatisfactory. Additionally, the court found that the deposit was taxable in the hands of the Hindu undivided family (HUF) Bandhan Ram and Sons, as it was linked to the HUF funds and not proven to be from individual earnings. The court ruled in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, ordering each party to bear their own costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:00:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=65092" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (4) TMI 28 - PATNA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26094</link>
      <description>The court held that the deposit of Rs. 2,77,471 in Bharat Bank was unexplained income as the explanations provided by the assessee were deemed unsatisfactory. Additionally, the court found that the deposit was taxable in the hands of the Hindu undivided family (HUF) Bandhan Ram and Sons, as it was linked to the HUF funds and not proven to be from individual earnings. The court ruled in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, ordering each party to bear their own costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26094</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>