Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.16 seconds)Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras. on 19 September, 1962
Prima facie, the question whether the amount of Rs. 1,38,000 came out of the savings or withdrawals made by the appellant from her several businesses or was income from undisclosed sources, would be a question of fact to be determined on a consideration of the facts and circumstances proved or admitted in the case. As this court observed in Sree Meenakshi Mills v. Commissioner of Income-tax, a finding of fact does not alter its character as one of fact merely because it is itself an inference from other basis facts; but a finding on a question of fact is open to attack under section 66 as erroneous in law when there is no evidence to support it or if it is perverse of has been reached without due consideration of the several relevant for such a determination.
Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 5 March, 1959
In coming to this conclusion we have kept in mind the observations made by this court in Omar Salary Mahomed Sait v. Commissioner of Income-tax, and Homi Jehangir Gheesta v. Commissioner of Income-tax. We have read the order of the Tribunal as a whole and we are not unmindful of the observation made in the case of Homi Jehangir Gheesta that in considering probabilities properly arising from the facts alleged or proved, the Tribunal does not indulge in conjectures, surmises or suspicions. We may perhaps add that what we have said in this judgment is meant only to show that certain questions of law arise out of the Tribunals order and the High Court was wrong in summarily rejecting the application for a reference.
Homi Jehangir Gheesta vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay on 22 September, 1960
In coming to this conclusion we have kept in mind the observations made by this court in Omar Salary Mahomed Sait v. Commissioner of Income-tax, and Homi Jehangir Gheesta v. Commissioner of Income-tax. We have read the order of the Tribunal as a whole and we are not unmindful of the observation made in the case of Homi Jehangir Gheesta that in considering probabilities properly arising from the facts alleged or proved, the Tribunal does not indulge in conjectures, surmises or suspicions. We may perhaps add that what we have said in this judgment is meant only to show that certain questions of law arise out of the Tribunals order and the High Court was wrong in summarily rejecting the application for a reference.
1