<?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>1958 (11) TMI 3 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49631</link>
    <description>An order under section 25A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, is confined to determining whether a Hindu undivided family has partitioned and in what shares, and it does not decide the tax character of particular receipts in assessment proceedings. The taxing authorities were therefore not bound by the section 25A order on whether disputed credits represented sale proceeds or other income. On the facts, unexplained credits in the business accounts, coupled with the failure to prove the true source of the entries, could be treated as assessable business profits. The finding that the amount represented concealed business income was supported by evidence and not perverse.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Nov 2018 13:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88111" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (11) TMI 3 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49631</link>
      <description>An order under section 25A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, is confined to determining whether a Hindu undivided family has partitioned and in what shares, and it does not decide the tax character of particular receipts in assessment proceedings. The taxing authorities were therefore not bound by the section 25A order on whether disputed credits represented sale proceeds or other income. On the facts, unexplained credits in the business accounts, coupled with the failure to prove the true source of the entries, could be treated as assessable business profits. The finding that the amount represented concealed business income was supported by evidence and not perverse.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49631</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>