Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)The Central Excise Act, 1944
Orient Distributors vs Bank Of India Ltd. And Ors. on 19 January, 1979
"26. Relying on the decisions of
this Court in Bejoy Gopal Mukherji
v. Pratul Chandra Ghose and Orient
Distributors v. Bank of India Ltd.
Shri Iyer, learned Senior Counsel
contended that issue relating to
the propriety of legal conclusion
that could be drawn on basis of
proved facts gives rise to a
question of law and, therefore, the
High Court is justified in
interfering in the matter since the
authorities below failed to draw a
proper and logical inference from
the proved facts. We are unable to
persuade ourselves to accept the
submission. The findings of fact
arrived at by the authorities below
are based on proper appreciation of
the facts and the material
available on record and surrounding
circumstances. The doubtful nature
of the transaction and the manner
in which the sums were found
credited in the books of accounts
maintained by the assessee have
been duly taken into consideration
by the authorities below. The
transactions though apparent were
held to be not real ones. May be
the money came by way of bank
cheques and paid through the
process of banking transaction but
that itself is of no consequence."
Boodireddy Chandraiah And Ors vs Arigela Laxmi And Anr on 17 September, 2007
16. Needless to say if there is no substantial question
of law involved, the appeal has to be dismissed. (See
Boodireddy Chandraiah and Others v. Arigela Laxmi and
Another5).
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs P. Mohanakala on 15 May, 2007
12. The provisions of Section 35G of the Act, 1944 and
the provisions of the Section 260-A of the Act, 1961 are
pari materia. Thus, the Supreme Court in P. Mohanakala
(supra) dealing with the provisions of Act, 1961 with
regard to question of law observed as under :
The Advocates Act, 1961
Section 260A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Bejoy Gopal Mukherji vs Pratul Chandra Ghose on 28 January, 1953
"26. Relying on the decisions of
this Court in Bejoy Gopal Mukherji
v. Pratul Chandra Ghose and Orient
Distributors v. Bank of India Ltd.
Shri Iyer, learned Senior Counsel
contended that issue relating to
the propriety of legal conclusion
that could be drawn on basis of
proved facts gives rise to a
question of law and, therefore, the
High Court is justified in
interfering in the matter since the
authorities below failed to draw a
proper and logical inference from
the proved facts. We are unable to
persuade ourselves to accept the
submission. The findings of fact
arrived at by the authorities below
are based on proper appreciation of
the facts and the material
available on record and surrounding
circumstances. The doubtful nature
of the transaction and the manner
in which the sums were found
credited in the books of accounts
maintained by the assessee have
been duly taken into consideration
by the authorities below. The
transactions though apparent were
held to be not real ones. May be
the money came by way of bank
cheques and paid through the
process of banking transaction but
that itself is of no consequence."
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S Neepaz Steels Ltd on 4 July, 2008
(11) Whether the learned Appellate
Tribunal failed to exercise
its jurisdiction by ignoring
the case of Commissioner of
Central Excise, Chandigarh vs.
Neepaz Steels (India) reported
in 2007 (213) E.L.T. 100 (Tri-
1