Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.26 seconds)
Gurdayal Berlia vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Calcutta. on 10 January, 1964 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... vs Calcutta Agency Ltd on 21 December, 1950

Mr. Roy has referred to us a plethora of decisions for convincing us that we are taking a wrong view of the matter. He has continuously harped on his theory that, even when there is a flagrant non-observance of the fundamental evidence on record, this court can also interfere. Before parting with this case we like to refer to one of them which is in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. It was decided that the jurisdiction of the High Court in the matter of income-tax reference made by the Appellate Tribunal under the Income-tax Act is an advisory jurisdiction and, under the Act, the decision of the Tribunal on facts is final, unless it can be successfully assailed on the ground that there is no evidence for the conclusion on facts recorded by the Tribunal. It is, therefore, the duty of the High Court to start by looking at the facts found by the Tribunal and answer the question of law on that footing. Any departure from this rule will convert the High Court into a fact-finding authority which does not come under the advisory jurisdiction. This decision in our opinion does not also help the assessees contention as in the reported decision it appears that a specific question was raised as to whether there was material on the record to show that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal was based on no evidence and in that context the above decision was made. Such is not the case here and, therefore, the last contention raised by Mr. Roy must also fail. Our conclusion may, therefore, be summarised as follows :
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 223 - H J Kania - Full Document

Calcutta Discount Company Limited vs Income-Tax Officer, Companies ... on 1 November, 1960

The Kerala High Court has reiterated the principle of law decided in the Calcutta Discount case stated above and has decided, inter alia, that if the assessee does not disclose his entire income, but only returns a part, there is an omission in his part to disclose fully and truly the material facts of his total income and section 34(1) (a) is attracted. There is, however, a distinguishing feature in this Kerala decision which is absent in the instant case. It has been observed by their Lordships that there is merit in the final contention that was raised on behalf of the assessee. There is nothing to indicate that at the time the assessee filed his return, his accounts relating to his Cochin business had been completed and that he knew exactly what his income was from that business. In the return he had only estimated that income to the best of his belief. The fact that when the accounts were finally closed, it was seen that the income was actually much more, is not sufficient to hold that the assessee had not truly and fully disclosed his income, unless there is material to show that the assessee knew at the time he submitted his return that his income was not that which was estimated by him. This observation, in our opinion, does not help the assessee in any way as the assessee in the reported decision really made a full disclosure as to the apparent state of things in the business accounts which were not finalised. He was rather compelled to make a return on an estimated return which he might have obtained out of the transaction, lest he be found guilty of non-disclosure. Such is not the case here inasmuch as we have already shown that there was absolutely no disclosure of the material facts, although the assessee in the instant case happened to know the Bombay transaction which was a fait accompli at the time of submitting the first return.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 1681 - K C Gupta - Full Document
1   2 Next