Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.97 seconds)
Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 5 March, 1959 cites

Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs C.I.T. Bombay on 25 October, 1954

In Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, we expressed the opinion that when a court of fact arrives at its decision by considering material which is irrelevant to the enquiry, or acts on material partly relevant and partly irrelevant, where it is impossible to say to what extent the mind of the court was affected by the irrelevant material used by it in arriving at its decision, a question of law arises : Whether the finding of the court of fact is not vitiated by reason of its having relied upon conjectures, surmises and suspicions not supported by any evidence on record or party upon evidence and partly upon inadmissible material.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 203 - M C Mahajan - Full Document

Dhakeswar1 Cotton Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax,West Bengal on 29 October, 1954

27. It was similarly observed by us in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, that the powers given to the Income-tax Officer under section 23(3) of the Income-tax Act, however wide, did not entitle him to base the assessment on pure guess without reference to any evidence or material. An assessment under section 23(3) of the Act could not be made only on bare suspicion. An assessment so made without disclosing to the assessee the information supplied by the departmental representative and without giving any opportunity to the assessee to rebut the information so supplied and declining to take into consideration all materials which the assessee wanted to produce in support of his case constituted a violation of the fundamental rules of justice and called for exercise of the powers under article 136 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 706 - M C Mahajan - Full Document
1