Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1981 (7) TMI 50

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wn in the earlier return. In the last return filed on December 21, 1960, the assessee had shown professional income of Rs. 80,575 as her earning from the films, viz., Hospital, Bombai-ka-Babu and Saptapadi. Daring the assessment proceedings the assessee agreed with the ITO that there was some mistake in the professional income shown by her. Finally, the assessee agreed that in the accounting year relevant to the assessment year under reference she received Rs. 95,500 in respect of her role in the different films. The ITO, however, considering the investments made by the assessee in the purchase of house property, jewellery, cadillac car., etc., estimated the assessee's professional income at Rs. 3 lakhs and the net professional income of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al upheld the order of the AAC in respect of the assessee's professional income at Rs. 95,500. Moreover, the Tribunal allowed expenses of Rs. 15,000 as against Rs. 12,000 allowed by the AAC. Again, the Tribunal estimated the assessee's income from other sources at Rs. 46,000 in place of Rs. 70,000 estimated by the AAC. In its order dated April 12, 1971, against the penalty imposed under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Tribunal held that with reference to the professional income as finally assessed there was no concealment. For reasons stated in the order under reference and relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC), the Tribunal held that the provisions of s. 271 (1)(c) of the Act were....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h was assessed as income from undisclosed sources. According to the Tribunal, the receipts from A.D. Films of Rs. 30,101 was considered to be not proved. There was no evidence on the part of the department to show that the assessee had actually received such an amount as alleged by the department. The loan from Saroda Finance of Rs. 30,000, according to the Tribunal, is not income and the receipt of Rs. 50,000 from Charu Chitra was held by the Tribunal to be not taxable. It, is found by the Tribunal that there was an excess of expenditure over the receipts. According to the Tribunal, there was no evidence which can be taken to have established that such expenditure was made out of any unaccounted receipts which was established to be an inc....