Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Ghanshyam Das Johri (Allahabad High Court)
Related Assessment Year : Block period 01-04-1989 to 08-07-1999
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Ghanshyam Das Johri (Allahabad High Court) Regarding the investment, it appears that the seized jewellery was claimed by three ladies namely Rupali Rastogi, Smt. Sunita Rastogi; and Smt. Kamni Rastogi. All the ladies belonged to the reputed families and they are married. As per the CBDT Circular discussed in the case of Smt. Pati Devi vs. ITO; 240 ITR 727 Karnatka 500gm, jewellery is expected in the possession of a married lady and that much of ornaments cannot be seized. If we go with the CBDT Circular dated 11.05.1994 and the ratio laid down in the case of Smt. ...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Post by Date
June 2026
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930