Summary |
In this significant case, the Allahabad High Court addressed the complexities surrounding benami transactions under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case involved the assessment of income and wealth tax references concerning properties purchased in the names of family members, leading to questions about their true ownership. The court clarified that the onus of proving a transaction as benami lies with the tax department, and findings must be based on substantial evidence rather than assumptions. This ruling is pivotal for taxpayers and legal professionals, reinforcing the need for rigorous proof in tax-related disputes. The case references several notable precedents, including Jaydayal Poddar v. Bibi Hazra, which further solidifies the legal framework governing benami transactions. The court's decision to favor the assessee serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in protecting taxpayer rights against unfounded claims. |
Other Citations |
Jaydayal Poddar v. Bibi Hazra (1974) A I R 1974 S C 171,
Bhuban Mohini Dasi v. Kumud Bala Dasi (1924) A I R 1924 Cal. 467,
C.I.T. v. Daya Chand Jain Vaidya (1975) 98 I T R 280 (All.),
C.I.T. v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 I T R 540 S C,
Dalip Singh v. Nawal Kunwar (1908) L R 35 I A 104,
I L R 30 All. 258 (P C),
Damodaran (D) v. Leelavathi Ammal A I R 1975 Mad. 278,
Dhurm Das v. Shama Soondri Dibiah (1843) 3 M I A 229 (P C),
Gangadara Ayyar v. Subramania Sastrigal A I R 1949 F C 88,
Ganguly (S.N.) v. C.I.T. (1953) 24 I T R 16 (Pat.),
Gopeekrist Gosain v. Gungapersand Gosains (1854) 6 M I A 53 (P C),
Govindarajulu Mudaliar (A) v. C.I.T. (1958) 34 I T R 807 (S C),
Hazarilal v. C.I.T. (1963) 47ITA 516(A.P),
Imamt:andi Begam v. Kamleswari Pershad (1886) L R 13 A 160,
I L R 14 Cal. 109 (P C),
I. T.O. v. Dhanalakshmi Ammal (M.R) (1978) 112 I T R. 413 (Mad.),
C.I.T. v. Dault Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 I T R 349 S C,
C.I.T. v. Ganapathi Mudaliar (1964) 53 I T R 623 (S C),
Irshad Ali v. Kariman (1917) 22 CWN 530 (P C),
Kumaraswami Reddiar (S) v. C.I.T. (1960) 40 I T R 590 (Ker.),
Mohan Singh Oberri (Rai Bahadur) v. C.I.T. (1973) 88 I T R 53 (SC),
Murthi(R.K.) v. C.I.T. (1961) 42 I T R 379 (Mad.),
Promode Kumar Roy v. Madan Mohan Saha Pramanik (1923) A I R 1923 Cal. 228,
Ramoswami Naidu (V,) v. C.I.T. (1974) 93 I T R 341 (Mad.),
Ramkinkar Banerji v. C.I.T. (1936) 4 I T R 108 (Pat.),
Ramnath Daga (Seth) v. C.I.T. (1971.) 82 I T R 287 (Bom.),
Sheo Narain In re: (1954) 26 ITR 249 (All),
Sovaram Jokhiram v. C.I.T. (1944) 12 I T R 110 (Pat.),
Subramanian (KM. N. N. S. N) v. C.I.T. (1965) 55 I T R 610 (Mad.),
Union of India v. Moksh Builders and Financiers Ltd. A I R 1977 S C 409,
Upendra Nath Nag Chowdhury v. Bhupendra Nath Nag Chowdhury (1971) 21 C W N 280,
(1916) 32 I C 267 (Cal.),
Juggilal Kamlapat v. C.I.T. (1969) 73 I T R 702 S,C),
1Cale Khan Muhammad Hanif v. C.I.T. (1963) 50 I T R 1 (S C),
Karnani Properties Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1971) 82I T R 547 (S C),
Sheik Muhammad Naqi (K.B.) v. C.I.T. (1945) 13 I T R 452 .(Lah.),
Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. C.I:T. (1957) 31 I T R 28 (S C)
|