Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 613 (1.94 seconds)
Documents citing C.I.T. (Central) Calcutta vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull on 12 September, 1972

Dhanalaxmi Steel Re-Rolling Mills vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 7 October, 1996

6. The facts as found are clearly (as above) indicative of the source being not genuine - a finding which has been specifically recorded in the proceeding. When the law has given to the Assessing Officer discretion and it is his satisfaction upon which genuineness has to be decided, his inference on the basis of the facts, in our view, is a finding of fact and as held by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull , findings on questions of pure fact arrived at by the Tribunal are not to be disturbed by the High Court on a reference unless it appears that there was no evidence before the Tribunal upon which they, as reasonable men, could come to the conclusion to which they have come; and this is so even though the High Court would on the evidence have come to a conclusion entirely different from that of the Tribunal. It is well settled that a finding of fact can be reviewed only on the ground that there is no evidence to support it or that it is perverse. Moreover, when a conclusion has been reached on an appreciation of a number of facts, whether that is sound or not must be determined, not by considering the weight to be attached to each single fact in isolation, but by assessing the cumulative effect of all the facts in their setting as a whole.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 7 - Cited by 7 - V R Reddy - Full Document

P.K. Narayanan vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 10 June, 1997

In CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull, [1973] 87 ITR 349, also the Supreme Court reiterated the above principle and observed that the findings on questions of pure fact arrived at by the Tribunal are not to be disturbed by the High Court on a reference unless it appears that there was no evidence before the Tribunal upon which they, as reasonable men, could come to the conclusion to which they have come ; and this is so even though the High Court would on the evidence have come to a conclusion entirely different from that of the Tribunal. It was held that such a finding can be reviewed only on the ground that there is no evidence to support it or that it is perverse. Further, when a conclusion has been reached on an appreciation of a number of facts, whether that is sound or not must be determined, not by considering the weight to be attached to each single fact in isolation, but by assessing the cumulative effect of all the facts in their setting as a whole.
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 6 - G Sivarajan - Full Document

Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd.,, Pune vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax,, ... on 29 October, 2021

That further, when we observe that a part finding of the Tribunal whether such business assets were used for the purpose of business of the assessee, the Tribunal has given its own analysis, though this part is not disputed by the assessee but because of the fact that on the issue of establishing ownership, the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction, in such scenario, therefore, taking guidance from the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (supra.), the entire findings on this issue gets vitiated and has to be held as incorrect. Therefore, in our considered view, mistake apparent from record 22 MA Nos.75 to 81/PUN/2019 Coca-Cola India Pvt. Ltd.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jcit 9(1)(2), Mumbai vs Apex Infra Tech P Ltd, Mumbai on 23 August, 2017

7.1.7. The onus to prove that apparent, is not the real one, is on the party who claims it to be so, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 and CIT v. Durga Prasad More (supra). In the latter case, it has been held by the Apex Court that though an apparent statement must be considered real until it was shown that there were reasons to believe that apparent was not the real, in a case where an authority relied on self serving recitals in documents, it was for the party to establish the proof of those recitals, the taxing authorities were entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out reality of such recitals. 7.1.8 It is also a settled legal proposition that if no evidence is given by the part)- on whom the burden is cast, the issue must be found against him. Therefore, onus is always on a person who asserts a proposition or fact, which is not self evident. The onus, as a determining factor of the whole case can only arise if the Tribunal, which is vested with the authority to determine, finally all questions of fact, finds the evidence pro & con, so evenly balanced that it can come to no conclusion, then, the onus will determine the matter. Needless to say that the onus is heavy or light, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. There cannot be any doubt that onus as a determining factor comes into play where, either there is no evidence on either side, or where it is equally worthless or where it is equally balanced. It is imperative to mention here that where such is not the case and all available evidence is considered, without reference to the onus and without relying on the circumstances that onus lies on a particular party, the issue is determined on facts and the onus cannot be said to have influenced the decisions. However, in the instant case, the appellant has miserably failed to lead evidence and hence, onus is a determining factor.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 56 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next