Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.33 seconds)Section 66 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Saroj Kumar Mazumdar vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 4 May, 1959
6. The question whether a transaction is an adventure in the nature of trade is a mixed question I of law and fact, see G. Venkataswarni Naidu and Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, and Saroj Kumar v. Income-tax Commissioner, West Bengal, .
The Oriental Investment Co., Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay on 22 May, 1957
7.
The question as to what are the characteristics which distinguish trading in shares from investment is a mixed question of fact and law. The legal effect of the facts found by the Tribunal and whether as a result the assessee is a dealer or an investor, is itself a question of law, see Oriental Investment Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, . In the instant case the assessee firm is a dealer in stocks and shares in joint stock companies. Some of the shares held by it were admittedly the stock-in-trade of its business. The question in issue is whether the shares held by the assessee firm in set No. 2 were also its stock-in-trade. Such a question is a mixed question of law and fact. The question must be determined by ascertaining whether on the facts found by the Tribunal those shares satisfy the characteristics of stock-in-trade as distinguished from simple investment.
Meenakshi Mills, Madurai vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Madras on 26 September, 1956
9. Under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act the Appellate Tribunal can be required to refer questions of law arising out of their order. On such a reference the findings of fact by the Tribunal must generally be regarded by the High Court as conclusive. But there are well recognized exceptions to this rule, and a finding of fact cannot be regards as conclusive if there is no evidence to support it or if it is perverse and not rationally possible; see Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. Madurai v. Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay, : or if the finding is inconsistent with the evidence or contradictory of it, Liquidators of Pursa Ltd. v. Commissioner ot Income-tax Bihar, or if the finding is based on inadmissible evidence or upon improper rejection or relevant and admissible evidence; or if it rests on conjectures, surmises and suspicions or was arrived at on consideration of materials which are partly relevant and partly irrelevant and inadmissible, Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, . Shortly put in all such
cases the finding of fact is deemed to be erroneous in point of law. An inference of tact drawn from other facts can itself be a finding of fact. A distinction is sometimes drawn between primary facts and inferences drawn from them, 1956 AC 14 at p. 36; and while a simple finding of primary facts is regarded as conclusive, inferences of fact drawn from them may be impeached on the ground mentioned above, .
The Liquidators Of Pursa Limited vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar on 9 February, 1954
9. Under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act the Appellate Tribunal can be required to refer questions of law arising out of their order. On such a reference the findings of fact by the Tribunal must generally be regarded by the High Court as conclusive. But there are well recognized exceptions to this rule, and a finding of fact cannot be regards as conclusive if there is no evidence to support it or if it is perverse and not rationally possible; see Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. Madurai v. Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay, : or if the finding is inconsistent with the evidence or contradictory of it, Liquidators of Pursa Ltd. v. Commissioner ot Income-tax Bihar, or if the finding is based on inadmissible evidence or upon improper rejection or relevant and admissible evidence; or if it rests on conjectures, surmises and suspicions or was arrived at on consideration of materials which are partly relevant and partly irrelevant and inadmissible, Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, . Shortly put in all such
cases the finding of fact is deemed to be erroneous in point of law. An inference of tact drawn from other facts can itself be a finding of fact. A distinction is sometimes drawn between primary facts and inferences drawn from them, 1956 AC 14 at p. 36; and while a simple finding of primary facts is regarded as conclusive, inferences of fact drawn from them may be impeached on the ground mentioned above, .
Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs C.I.T. Bombay on 25 October, 1954
9. Under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act the Appellate Tribunal can be required to refer questions of law arising out of their order. On such a reference the findings of fact by the Tribunal must generally be regarded by the High Court as conclusive. But there are well recognized exceptions to this rule, and a finding of fact cannot be regards as conclusive if there is no evidence to support it or if it is perverse and not rationally possible; see Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. Madurai v. Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay, : or if the finding is inconsistent with the evidence or contradictory of it, Liquidators of Pursa Ltd. v. Commissioner ot Income-tax Bihar, or if the finding is based on inadmissible evidence or upon improper rejection or relevant and admissible evidence; or if it rests on conjectures, surmises and suspicions or was arrived at on consideration of materials which are partly relevant and partly irrelevant and inadmissible, Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, . Shortly put in all such
cases the finding of fact is deemed to be erroneous in point of law. An inference of tact drawn from other facts can itself be a finding of fact. A distinction is sometimes drawn between primary facts and inferences drawn from them, 1956 AC 14 at p. 36; and while a simple finding of primary facts is regarded as conclusive, inferences of fact drawn from them may be impeached on the ground mentioned above, .
Messrs. Lalchand Bhagat Ambical Ram vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar & ... on 14 May, 1959
10. The Tribunal being the final fact finding body is under a duty to consider every fact for and against the assessee with due care. The Tribunal must clearly indicate the questions which arose for determination, the evidence pro and contra with regard to each question and the findings arrived at: Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa ; Omar Salay Mahomad Sait v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras . The Tribunal must not misdirect itself on questions of law and must approach the facts from a proper angle. .
Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 5 March, 1959
10. The Tribunal being the final fact finding body is under a duty to consider every fact for and against the assessee with due care. The Tribunal must clearly indicate the questions which arose for determination, the evidence pro and contra with regard to each question and the findings arrived at: Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa ; Omar Salay Mahomad Sait v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras . The Tribunal must not misdirect itself on questions of law and must approach the facts from a proper angle. .
Sardar Indra Singh And Sons Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... on 23 September, 1953
The case last cited was approved by the Supreme Court in Indra Singh and Sons Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, .