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

1993 (3) TMI 81

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ment years 1983-84 and 1984-85, the following question of law has been referred to this court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the addition made by the Income-tax Officer on account of the estimated income on diverted funds ?" Shortly stated, the facts are that in the periods relevant to the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n either as regards the three members of the family who took the so-called advance or as regards the so-called advances in question. In the circumstances, therefore, we must hold that the aggregate sum of Rs. 90,000 remained the property of the family. We are not impressed by Shri Damle's argument that the said sum was advanced as a loan by the family to the three members. Had it been so, there wo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the three members of the family. This is the basic primary fact on the basis whereof the Tribunal proceeded to hold that the aggregate sum of Rs. 90,000 remained the property of the family. The contention that the said sum was advanced as loan by the family to the three members has not been proved before the Tribunal. The Tribunal also found that there was no agreement in support of the contention....