SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1953 Supreme(Bom) 43

M.C.CHAGLA, S.R.TANDOLKAR
Mehta Parikh and Co. – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, Kutch and Saurashtra, Baroda – Respondent


Judgment - Chagla, C.J.

1. Though Mr. Kolah has argued this reference with considerable heat and warmth, it raises a very short and Simple question. The assessment year is 1947-48 and the accounting year is the calendar year 1946. It apears that on 18-1-1946, the assessee encashed high denomination notes of the face value of Rs. 61,000. The books of account of the assessee showed that there was an opening cash balance on that day of Rs. 72,863-13-3. On 20-12-1945, the opening cash balance was Rs. 14,318. On 2-1-1946, the opening cash balance was Rs. 18,396. On 12-1-1946, the cash balance was Rs. 69.891. 12-1-1946, is an important date because that was the date on which the High Denomination notes Ordinance came into force.

What has been held by the taxing authorities is that the sum of Rs. 61,000 was the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources and the high denomination notes did not represent the business receipts of the assessee. The Tribunal has concurred in this decision to the extent of Rs. 30,000, and the question that arises before us is whether there was any material which justified the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that it did.

2. Now, prima facie, one would ha






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top