This is mine google SMS channel through this you will receive direct updates in mobile
Labels
Accounting Standards
BLANK FORMS
Budget Proposals
CA STUDENT
CA STUDENTS
CA members
Case Laws
Companies Act
Company Secretary
Cost Accounting standards
EVENTS (CA nd students)
Exchange rates (import and exports)
FBT
Free downloads-calc nd many more
GST
HUF
ICWAI Members
IFRS
Income Tax
Knowledge Centre (CA and CS students)
LLP
MICR codes of banks
MVAT
NEWS
Professional tax
RBI circular
Revision Test Papers
SEBI Laws
SITE MAP
SOX
Service tax
State budget
Suggested answers
TDS
article
budget 2009-10
letters
Saturday, July 11, 2009
CIT v Rameshwar Dass Suresh Pal Cheeka (P & H) (08/12/2006)
Income Tax Act, 1961, s. 68 – Held, referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court on thisissue in Girdhari Lal Nannelal vs. Sales Tax Commissioner - Where a credit entry in respectof Rs.10,000/- stands in the name of the wife of the partner, no presumption arises that thesaid amount represents the income of the firm and not of the partner or his wife - The fact that neither the assessee firm nor its partner or his wife adduced satisfactory material to show the source of that money would not lead to the inference that the said sum represents theincome of firm accruing from undisclosed sale transactions – Petition Disposed Of.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment