Just a moment...

Top
Help
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1987 (11) TMI 151

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Mighty Engineers Rs. 2,00,000 3. Mrs. T.W. Fernando Rs. 20,000 4. M/s. Rajan Trading Co. Rs. 1,00,000 5. Mr. M. Imaculate Rs. 35,000 6. Mrs. Visalakshi Mayyappan Rs. 35,000 7. M/s Saghai Exporters Rs. 10,000 . Rs. 6,00,000 However only a sum of Rs. 2,18,000 had actually been received. The income and expenditure statement of the assessee showed an of expenditure of Rs. 2,61,107. The statement of affairs is tabulated as follows: Trust Fund: As per the last statement of affairs. Rs. 15,158 Add: Receipts during the year Rs. 6,00,000 Rs. 6,15,158 Less: Excess of expenditure over income Rs. 2,61,107 Balance: Rs. 3,54,051 The ITO was of the view that this picture was not acceptable unless it can be assumed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., it was argued that the retention of the monies promised by the donors until actual delivery of the cash to the assessee did not amount either to a loan or a diversion or investment because there was no voluntary Act of the assessee in that regard. 5. On the other hand, the contention of the Revenue was that taking all the amounts to the credit of the assessee in the books itself constituted a gift and the provisions of s.13 were attracted as held by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Sharda Trust vs. CIT (1980) 16 CTR (P&H) 36 : (1981) 127 ITR 236 (P&H). It was submitted that in the circumstances the assessment should be upheld. 6. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitl....