Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.29 seconds)
Messrs. Lalchand Bhagat Ambical Ram vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar & ... on 14 May, 1959 cites

Messrs Mehta Parikh & Co vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay on 10 May, 1956

In arriving at the above decision the High Court referred to the cases of Mehta Parikh & Co. v. Commissioner of Income- tax, Bombay (1) and Chunilal Ticamchand Coal Co., Ltd. v. Commissioner of Incometax, Bihar and Orissa (2). It is, therefore, clear that the Tribunal in arriving at the conclusion it did in the present case indulged in (1) [1956) S.C,R. 626, (2) [1955] 27 I.T.R. 6o2 320 suspicions, conjectures and surmises and acted without any evidence or upon a view of the facts which could not reasonably be entertained or the facts found were such that no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have found, or the finding was, in other words, perverse and this Court is entitled to interfere.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 335 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

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

relied upon conjectures, surmises and suspicions not supported by any evidence on record or partly upon evidence and partly upon inadmissible material. We also observed in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Benyal (1) that an assessment so made without disclosing to the assessee the information supplied by the departmental representative and without giving any 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 of the case constituted a violation of the fundamental rules of justice and called for interference on our part. In Messrs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 706 - M C Mahajan - Full Document

Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Uttar ... on 18 February, 1957

A decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in in Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Incometax, Uttar Pradesh(') may also be noted in this context. The assessee there encashed 32 currency notes of Rs. 1,000 each on January 12, 1946, when the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Ordinance, 1946, came into force, and when the Income-tax Officer called upon it to explain how these currency notes came into its possession, the assessee claimed that the notes represented part of its cash balance which, on that date, stood at Rs. 34,313. The Income-tax Officer rejected the explanation and assessed the amount of Rs. 32,000 represented by these currency notes as suppressed income of the assessee from some undisclosed source. The Tribunal took into account the statement of sales relating to a few days preceding the date of encashment and found that the highest amount of any one single transaction was only Rs. 399. The Tribunal also referred to another statement of the daily cash balances of the assessee from December 20, 1945, to January 12, 1946, and noted that the cash balance of the assessee was steadily increasing. The Tribunal, however, estimated that high denomination (1) [1955] 27 I.T.R. 602.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 35 - Full Document

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

In Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay (1) we observed 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 (1) [1954] 26 I.T.R. 736.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 203 - M C Mahajan - Full Document
1