Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.28 seconds)

Raghubar Mandal Harihar Mandal vs The State Of Bihar on 22 May, 1957

In this connection, we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Raghubar Mandal Harihar Mandal v. State of Bihar [1957] 8 S.T.C. 770 wherein their Lordships stated that when the returns and the books of account are rejected, the assessing officer must make an estimate and to that extent he must make a guess; but the estimate must be related to some evidence or material and it must be something more than mere suspicion. He must make what he honestly believes to be a fair estimate of the proper figure of assessment and for this purpose he must take into consideration such materials as the assessing officer has before him, including the assessee's circumstances, knowledge of previous returns and all other matters which the assessing officer thinks will assist him in arriving at a fair and proper estimate. It is, however, urged that there is in the body of the order of the Board, an implied direction that the sale proceeds of the forest produce should be taken at 2½ times the price paid therefor. In our opinion, those observations were made by the Board merely to indicate what according to it might have enabled it to hold that the estimate was on reasonable and proper ground. We think that those observations do not in any way fetter the Judgment of the Sales Tax Officer who has to decide the case in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case we have just mentioned. In conclusion, all that we need say is that this question does not raise any point of law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 104 - S K Das - Full Document

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

In support of his view, he relied upon two cases: S. Veeriah Reddiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Travancore-Cochin [1960] 38 I.T.R. 152 and R.M.P. Perianna Pillai & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1961] 42 I.T.R. 370. We consider it sufficient to say that these cases considered the meaning and scope of the proviso to Section 13 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 39 - Full Document

Gunda Subbayya vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras. on 27 October, 1933

It is well-settled that even apart from that proviso, the Income-tax Officer may, for good and sufficient reasons, reject the account books as unreliable and make an assessment Under Section 23(3) of that Act: Gunda Subbayya v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras [1939] 7 I.T.R. 21 F.B.. So far as this case is concerned, we consider it sufficient to say that there was no burden on the assessing authorities to prove by positive evidence that the account books were unreliable and further that the conclusion that the account books are unreliable is a conclusion of fact: Ganga Ram Balmokand v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Punjab [1937] 5 I.T.R. 464. In view of this position, our answer to the first question is that even if the account books are regularly maintained and no flaw can be discovered in those books, the assessing authorities are not bound to accept them if they be found to be otherwise unreliable.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 15 - Full Document
1