Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)
George Varghese vs Collector Of Central Excise on 1 November, 1991 cites

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

"We have set out the facts in minute detail as we are setting aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal and remanding the matter back to it in order to reconsider the same. The limits of our jurisdiction in regard to the findings of fact reached by courts of fact have been laid down by us in several decisions of this Court, In Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [(1954) 26 ITR 736] we expressed the opinion that when a Court of fact arrives at its decision by considering material which is irrelevant to the enquiry, or acts on material partly relevant and partly irrelevant, where it is impossible to say to what extent the mind of the court was affected by the irrelevant material used by it in arriving at its decision, a question of law arises: Whether the finding of the Court of fact is not vitiated by reason of its having relied upon conjectures, surmises and suspicions not supported by any evidence on record or partly upon evidence and partly upon inadmissible material.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 203 - M C Mahajan - Full Document

Dhakeswar1 Cotton Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax,West Bengal on 29 October, 1954

It was similarly observed by us in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [(1954) 26 ITR 775] that the powers given to the Income-tax Officer under Section 23(3) of the Income-tax Act, however wide, did not entitle him to base the assessment on pure guess without reference to any evidence 01 material. An assessment under Section 23(3) of the Act, could not be made only on bare suspicion. An assessment so made without disclosing to the assessee the information supplied by the departmental representative and without giving an opportunity to the assessee to rebut the information so supplied and declining to take into consideration all materials which the assessee wanted to produce in support port of his case constituted a violation of the fundamental rules of justice are called called for exercise of the powers under Article 136 of the Constitution."
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 706 - M C Mahajan - Full Document
1   2 Next