<?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>1977 (6) TMI 22 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38413</link>
    <description>Cash credits standing in a family member&#039;s name in third-party books can be treated as the Hindu undivided family&#039;s undisclosed income where surrounding circumstances provide affirmative material linking the credits to the family. The Bombay HC noted that rejection of the assessee&#039;s explanation alone was insufficient, but the partition deed was unreliable, no satisfactory proof showed the lady owned the initial funds, intervening books were not produced, and the interest and withdrawal entries were inconsistent with the stated version. The son&#039;s role in deposits and withdrawals supported a finding that the lady was only a name-lender, and the credits were properly brought to tax as revenue receipts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Apr 2010 10:57:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=76959" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (6) TMI 22 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38413</link>
      <description>Cash credits standing in a family member&#039;s name in third-party books can be treated as the Hindu undivided family&#039;s undisclosed income where surrounding circumstances provide affirmative material linking the credits to the family. The Bombay HC noted that rejection of the assessee&#039;s explanation alone was insufficient, but the partition deed was unreliable, no satisfactory proof showed the lady owned the initial funds, intervening books were not produced, and the interest and withdrawal entries were inconsistent with the stated version. The son&#039;s role in deposits and withdrawals supported a finding that the lady was only a name-lender, and the credits were properly brought to tax as revenue receipts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38413</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>