Just a moment...

βœ•
Top
Help
πŸš€ New: Section-Wise Filter βœ•

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β€” now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: β€œIn Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws β†’

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedbackβœ•

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

1984 (2) TMI 356

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... In this reference the following two question are referred to us by the Tribunal for determination : (1) Whether there was evidence before the Tribunal to give a finding that the assessee was not the owner of the contraband but only a carrier ? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 65,000 being the value of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he IT Act, 1961 added ₹ 65,000 being the then market value of the contraband goods to the income of the assessee. The appeal to the AAC filed by the assessee was dismissed. Thereafter the matter was taken up before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the assessee was not the owner of the gold but was only a carrier. The Tribunal has found that the financial condition of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The Tribunal has therefore, on the basis of these facts came to the conclusion that the assessee was a small person with insufficient means and that he was not the owner of the gold in question. The Tribunal has, therefore, come to the conclusion that the addition of ₹ 65,000 made by the ITO under s. 69A of the IT Act, 1961 was not justified. 3. In these circumstances, it cannot be said th....