Allowing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that Tribunal had erred in holding that the gift is genuine, when the Donor Shri Umesh Mehndiratta has given statement before the FERA Authorities that the Gift was not genuine. Court also held that the service of notice was held to be valid. (AY. 1994-95)
CIT v. Bhullan Mal Gupta (2021) 125 taxmann.com 103 (P&H)(HC) Editorial : Appeal was dismissed as not pressed. Bhullan Mal Gupta (HUF) v. CIT (2021) 278 Taxman 275 (SC.)
S. 68 : Cash credits-Foreign gifts-Gift was not genuine-Deletion was held to be not justified-Service of notice was held to be valid. [S. 148, 149]