Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 411 (2.45 seconds)
Documents citing Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 5 March, 1959

Sunit Engineering And Industrial ... vs Income-Tax Officer on 20 October, 1993

In my considered opinion, the above decision of my learned brother is incorrect in view of the settled position of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Salt v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151, wherein it was held that the Appellate Tribunal had improperly rejected evidence gathered by the Income-tax Officer after the passing of the assessment order but pending an appeal from the assessment order to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Applying the ratio of the above Supreme Court decision to the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal was perfectly justified in considering and relying on the additional statements of the three creditors which formed a part of the record before the Tribunal (having been filed by the assessee in the form of a paper book) even though these statements were recorded by the Income-tax Officer after the passing of the order by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 17 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs R.Y. Durlabhji on 27 May, 1992

In Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC), Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) and Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC), it has clearly been held by the apex court that there must be something more than mere suspicion in support of an assessment and mere suspicion cannot take the place of proof for the purpose of passing an order of assessment. Having taken an overall view of the matter, we are fully satisfied that the Tribunal has not committed any error in allowing the appeals filed by the assessee and no question of law arises for consideration by this court. Various judgments referred to by learned counsel for the parties deal with different fact situations and general propositions of law and, therefore, we have refrained from discussing each one of them at length.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 32 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Om Prakash Kashmirilal Punjabi vs The Commissioner Of Customs ... on 8 August, 2024

"12 After hearing at length the learned advocate for the assessee as well as the learned counsel for the Revenue, we, however, unfortunately Page 33 of 48 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri Aug 30 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 30 21:23:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CECGA/1/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2024 undefined find ourselves unable to answer the questions. The reason for our inability is, with respect to the Tribunal, its cryptic order since it is on the finding of fact made by the Tribunal that we have to answer the question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal. It is axiomatic to say that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is a fact-finding forum and, therefore, it is necessary for it that every fact for and against must have been considered with due care and the Tribunal is under an obligation to give its finding so as to clearly indicate as to precisely what were the questions arising for its determination, what was the evidence for and against on the record in regard to each one of these questions and what were its findings reached and on what evidence before it. It is a trite position in law that the conclusions reached by the Tribunal should not have been based on irrelevant considerations nor on suspicion, conjectures or surmises and they should be warranted in the evidence placed before it, which evidence should be relevant, and the Tribunal should not have improperly rejected any relevant material. If the Tribunal is remiss in its obligation, its findings, even though they may be findings of fact, would be liable to be set aside by the court (See Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 lTR 288(SC) and Omar Page 34 of 48 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri Aug 30 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 30 21:23:22 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CECGA/1/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2024 undefined Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151(SC)).
Gujarat High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - B D Karia - Full Document

Bhaichand Amoluk & Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 7 November, 1960

"We must read the order of the Tribunal as a whole to determine whether every material fact, for and against the assessee, has been considered fairly and with due care; whether the evidence pro and con has been considered in reaching the final conclusion; and whether the conclusion reached by the Tribunal has been coloured by irrelevant consideration or matters of prejudice. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the entire order of the Tribunal as also the relevant materials on which it is based. Having examined the order of the Tribunal and those materials, we are unable to agreed with learned counsel for the appellant that the order of the Tribunal is vitiated by any of the defects adverted to in Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, or Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. Commissioner of Income-tax. We must make it clear that we do not think that those decisions required that the order of the Tribunal must be examined sentence by sentence, through a microscope as it were, so as to discover a minor lapse here or an incautious opinion there to be used as a peg on which to hang an issue of law. In view of the arguments advanced before us it is perhaps necessary to add that in considering probabilities properly arising from the facts alleged or proved, the Tribunal does not indulge in conjectures, surmises or suspicions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs Acit Central Circle-17, New Delhi on 30 August, 2024

ii) 37 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT The conclusions reached by the Tribunal should not be coloured by any irrelevant considerations or matters of prejudice and if there are any circumstances which required to be explained by the assessee, the assessee should be given an opportunity of doing so. On no account whatever should the Tribunal base its findings on suspicious, conjectures or surmises nor should it act on no evidence at all or on improper rejection of material and relevant evidence or partly on evidence and partly on 58 ITA Nos.2935 to 2940/DEL/2023 suspicions, conjectures or surmises and if it does anything of the sort, its findings, even though on questions of fact, will be liable to be set aside by this Court.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 116 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs Acit Central Circle-17, New Delhi on 30 August, 2024

ii) 37 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT The conclusions reached by the Tribunal should not be coloured by any irrelevant considerations or matters of prejudice and if there are any circumstances which required to be explained by the assessee, the assessee should be given an opportunity of doing so. On no account whatever should the Tribunal base its findings on suspicious, conjectures or surmises nor should it act on no evidence at all or on improper rejection of material and relevant evidence or partly on evidence and partly on 58 ITA Nos.2935 to 2940/DEL/2023 suspicions, conjectures or surmises and if it does anything of the sort, its findings, even though on questions of fact, will be liable to be set aside by this Court.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 116 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Orissa Fisheries Development ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Orissa. on 20 September, 1974

The decisions of the Supreme Court in Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1954] 26 ITR 736 and Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1959] 37 ITR 151 do not, however, require that the order of the Tribunal must be examined sentence by sentence, through a microscope as it were, so as to discover a minor lapse here or an incautious opinion there to be used as a peg on which to hang an issue of law. In considering probabilities properly arising from the facts alleged or proved, the Tribunal does not indulge in conjectures, surmises or suspicions."
Orissa High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Gautambhai Devshankar Dave vs State Of Gujarat on 26 December, 2003

"We must read the order of the Tribunal as a whole to determine whether every material fact, for and against the assessee, has been considered fairly and with due care; whether the evidence pro and con has been considered in reaching the final conclusion; and whether the conclusion reached by the Tribunal has been coloured by irrelevant considerations or matters of prejudice. Learned Counsel for the appellant has taken us through the entire order of the Tribunal as also the relevant materials on which it is based. Having examined the order of the Tribunal and those materials, we are unable to agree with learned Counsel for the appellant that the order of the Tribunal is vitiated by any of the defects adverted to in Dhirajlal Girdharilal V. Commissioner of Income-tax or Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V. Commissioner of Income-tax. We must make it clear that we do not think that those decisions require that the order of the Tribunal must be examined sentence by sentence, through a microscope as it were, so as to discover a minor lapse here or an incautious opinion there to be used as a peg on which to hang an issue of law. In view of the arguments advanced before us it is perhaps necessary to add that in considering probabilities properly arising from the facts alleged or proved, the Tribunal does not indulge in conjectures, surmises or suspicions."
Gujarat High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next