Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.28 seconds)
Orissa Fisheries Development ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 20 September, 1974 cites

Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 5 March, 1959

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."
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 278 - Full Document

Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs C.I.T. Bombay on 25 October, 1954

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."
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 203 - M C Mahajan - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... vs Calcutta Agency Ltd on 21 December, 1950

22. To say the least, these are the two extreme judicial pronouncements of high authority but only circumscribed in the context of facts of those cases. They do not claim to touch, far less alter the normal law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 1911 "The jurisdiction of the High Court in the matter of income-tax references made by the Appellate Tribunal under the Indian Income-tax Act is an advisory jurisdiction and under the Act the decision of the Tribunal on facts is final, unless it can be successfully assailed on the ground that there was no evidence for the conclusions on facts recorded by the Tribunal. It is, therefore, the duty of the High Court to start by looking at the facts found by the Tribunal and answer the questions of law on that footing. Any departure from this rule of law will convert the High Court into a fact-finding authority, which it is not under the advisory jurisdiction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 223 - H J Kania - Full Document

S. Veeraiah Reddiar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala. on 5 April, 1961

23. The instant case, simple as it is, does not offer any difficulty. Having indicated the right approach in answering the reference, we may now advert to some of the points raised by the contending parties. It was argued on behalf of the assessee that loss, low profits or absence of variety-wise stock registers are not valid grounds to sustain the finding of rejection of accounts. For this, reliance was placed on the case of S. Veeriah Reddiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1960] 38 ITR 152 (Ker). But that case is clearly distinguishable. Even then there is no quarrel over the proposition that low profits and absence of variety-wise stock are not necessary grounds for rejection of books of account.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 39 - Full Document
1