9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (8) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be gifts received from the persons mentioned below. Name of the Depositor Deposits with names of donors 1.Sh. Ghanshyam Dass Rs. 20,000 Herbhajan Singh . Rs. 15,000 Ashok Kumar . Rs. 15,000 Jeet Singh . Rs. 50,000 . 2. Sh. Vijay Kumar (Indl.) Rs. 30,000 Khilari Singh 3. Smt. Suresh Gupta Rs. 25,000 Suraj Bhan . Rs. 20,000 Rajender Kumar . Rs. 15,000 Sushil Kumar . Rs. 15,000 Amitul Raquib . Rs. 75,000 . 4. Sh Pradeep Kr. Gupta Rs. 20,000 Naresh Kumar . Rs. 10,000 Sallu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said two depositors had gifted the amounts in question to Ghan Shyam Dass. Smt. Suresh Gupta, Pradeep Kumar and Smt. Rajini Gupta wife of Pradeep Kumar. In respect of the remaining donors the Tribunal had restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) to examine the genuineness of the said deposits. 3. It is urged before us that in conformity with the Tribunal order in the firm's case, the matte in respect of the aforesaid respondents should also be restored to the file of CIT(A) to consider the genuineness of the gifts received by the aforementioned respondents during the year under consideration. We order accordingly and restore the matte to the file of CIT(A) to examine afresh the genuiness of the gifts received by the seven respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion and the details as to the period in which the repairs were made and corresponding drawings in the said period by the assessee and member of his family. We would accordingly restore this matter to the file of the AAC to examine the matter afresh. 7. In the result, the assessee's a appeal is deemed to be allowed. 8. In the appeals by Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta for asst. yr. 1977-78 1978-79 a common contention is regarding the inclusion in the hands of Vijay Kumar (Indl.) under s. 64 of share income of Smt. Suresh Gupta (Wife of Vijay Kumar) in M/s Hari Chand Ghanshyam Dass Co. In which her husband Vijay Kumar was a partner representing his HUF. ITO included the share income in the hands of the assessee individual and AAC upheld it fol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
