Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.37 seconds)Messrs. Lalchand Bhagat Ambical Ram vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar & ... on 14 May, 1959
15. After having said that, the learned judge thought that the Tribunal was influenced by suspicions, conjectures and surmises which were freely indulged in by the Income-tax Officer and by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in arriving at their conclusions. If I could take an identical or a similar view of facts in this case also, I must have followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Lalchand Bhagat's case as this court was bound to follow it. If, on the other hand, the decision of the departmental authorities as also of the Tribunal is based upon relevant materials, not
only it is not perverse but seems to be reasonable also, then it is not open to this court to say that the findings arrived at by the departmental authorities or the Tribunal are vitiated in law. This same view has been expressed in the case of Bai Velbai, [1963] 49 ITR (SC) 130, where it has been pointed out that a finding on a question of fact is open to attack in reference as being erroneous in law when there is no evidence to support it or if it is perverse or has been reached without due consideration of the several materials relevant for such a determination.
Orient Trading Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central), ... on 30 August, 1962
Orient Trading Co, Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1963] 49 ITR 723 (Bom) is a decision of the Bombay High Court, in which it has been pointed out that if the credit entry stands in the name of the assessee himself, the burden is undoubtedly on him to prove satisfactorily the nature and source of the amount of that entry ; if the entry stands in the name of the assessee's near relation, in that case also the burden is on him. If the entry, however, stands in the name of a third party then the assessee discharges his burden if he proves to the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer the identity of the third party and also supplies evidence to show prima facie that the entry is not fictitious. If I may say so, the case in hand falls within the second category. If cash credits are found in the account books of a partnership firm in the names of the partners then such cash credits are in the names of persons who cannot call themselves as being related to the firm but surely are in the names of persons who constitute the firm itself. That being so, in such a case, the onus is on the assessee to establish that the partners had actually deposited the money and that the entries were not fictitious.
A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Hyderabad on 24 September, 1958
16. Venkatarama Aiyar J., delivering the judgment on behalf of the court, pointed out in Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC) at page 810 :
M/S. Lakshmichand Baijnath vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 13 November, 1958
17. The same learned judge opined in the case of Lakshmichand Baijnath v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1959] 35 ITR 416 (SC) that the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the cash credit did not represent the family jewels was a finding of fact, which could not be interfered with in a reference unless it was shown that there was no evidence to support it or that it was perverse. As the credit was found in the business account, it was not an unreasonable finding that it was a receipt from business.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs M. Ganapathi Mudaliar on 27 April, 1964
In Commissioner of Income-tax v. M. Ganapathi Mudaliar, [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC) it has been pointed out by the Supreme Court that if there is existence of the materials to support a finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal, the High Court should not act as an appellate court and once it is held that an amount credited in the account books of an assessee is the income of the assessee, it is not necessary for the department to locate its exact source.
Narayandas Kedarnath vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central on 28 March, 1952
12. Let me now proceed to examine briefly the case law on the point. Naraynadas Kedarnath v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1952] 22 ITR 18 (Bom) is a Bench decision of the Bombay High Court. There certain amount standing to the credit of some of the partners of the assessee-firm was found to be the amount actually brought in by them from their native place by means of bank draft, although the source from where the partners brought the money was not known. It was known, however, that it was the partners who had deposited the amount in the firm's account books and consequently it was held to be not the secreted profit of the firm.
Balbhadra Chand Munna Lal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 18 March, 1957
13.
Balbhadra Chand Munnalal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1958] 33 TTR 781 (All) is a Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court, The facts of this case are in conformity with the Bombay decision and the principles laid down are almost identical.
Bai Velbai vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 23 January, 1963
The cases are Narayandas Kedarnath v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1952] 22 ITR 18 (Bom), Balbhadra Chand Munnalal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1958] 33 ITR 781 (All), Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC), Bai Velbai v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1963J 49 ITR (SC) 130 and Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1963] 49 ITR 723 (Bom).