Case Law Details
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. Pati Devi (supra), then each lady is expected to own 500gm. ornaments.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
Present Appeal is filed by the department under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the judgment and order dated 30.09.2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow in I.T.A. No.608/Luc/2003 for the block period from 01.04.1989 to 08.07.1999.
On 30.03.2005, a Coordinate bench of this Court has admitted the instant appeal on the following substantial questions of law:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
