Edwards ( Inspector of Taxes) v. Bairstow

28 ITR 579Reported decision1955#15584 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2000 to 2018.

Judgments citing Edwards ( Inspector of Taxes) v. Bairstow

ITO, WD-5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SAYAJI MARKETING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result we set aside the order of the Ld

ITA 282/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 282/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Sayaji Marketing Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aagcs 0147 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 39/Kol/2018 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 282/Kol/2014) Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Sayaji Marketing Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aagcs 0147 M] (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Md. Usman, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri M. Kataruka, Advocate

Section 143(3)

…erence made under section 66 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 13 14 ITA No.282/Kol/2014 & C.O. No. 39/Kol/2018 M/s Sayaji Marketing Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr. 2010-11 1922. The Supreme Court referred to the leading case of Edwards ( Inspector of Taxes) v. Bairstow [1955] 28 ITR 579 (H.L.) decided by the House of Lords in which Viscount Simonds observed as under: "For it is universally conceded that, though it is a pure finding of fact, it may be set aside on grounds which have been stated in various ways but are, I think, fairly summarized by saying that the court should take that course if it appears that the Commissioners…

ITO, WD-5(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BLESSING COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result we set aside the order of the Ld

ITA 271/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jun 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon‟Ble Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 271/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 I.T.O., Ward-5(3), Kolkata -Vs.- M/S. Blessings Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 228A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aaccb 1349 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Goulen Hangshing, Cit, Dr. For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2017 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Vi, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Dt. 19/11/2013, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The „Act‟), Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts In Brief:- The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Finance & Investment. It Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On 22/09/2010, Declaring –Nil- Income. It Showed A Loss Of Rs.668/-. The Facts As Recorded By The Assessing Officer In The Assessment Order Are Extracted Below:- “Para 1.2.1 The Assessee Has Shown Receipt Of Under Mentioned Share Capital Of Rs.1,90,00,000/- & Share Premium Of Rs.188,10,00,000/- During The Asst. Year 2010-11. The Assessee Credited Rs.1,90,00,000/- In Total In Its Books Against The Above Receipts. The Assessee Claimed That The Detail Of Receipts Are As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Goulen Hangshing, CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

Section 250

…estion as to when the findings of facts recorded by the Tribunal can be interfered with in a reference made under section 66 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. The Supreme Court referred to the leading case of Edwards ( Inspector of Taxes) v. Bairstow [1955] 28 ITR 579 (H.L.) decided by the House of Lords in which Viscount Simonds observed as under: "For it is universally conceded that, though it is a pure finding of fact, it may be set aside on grounds which have been stated in various ways but are, I think, fairly summarized by saying that the court should take that course if it appears that the Commissioners…

DISHA N . LALWANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 23(2)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6398/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2003-04 Disha N. Lalwani, Income Tax Officer- J-301, Vardhaman Nagar 23(2)(2), बनाम/ Jn. Of R.P. Rd. & M.G. Rd. C-10-Pratyakshkar Vs. Mulund (W), Bhavan, 02Nd Floor, Mumbai-400080 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaapl6056H

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…see shall pay costs of Rs.30,000/-. Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal II v. Durga Prasad More, (1971) 82 ITR 540, Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central), Calcutta v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull, (1973) 87 ITR 349, Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v. Bairstow, (1955) 28 ITR 579 (H.L.), Mehta Parikh and Co. v. CIT, (1956) 30 ITR 181, Director of Income-Tax v. Bharat Diamond Bourse, (2003) 259 ITR 280 (SC), Lovely Exports P. Ltd. in (2008) 299 ITR 268 relied ; CIT v. Oasis Hospitalities Private Limited, (2011) 333 ITR 119 disapproved (Para 42) Conclusion : In the facts of the case, addition of Rs.1,18,50,000 made under se…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/342/2011HC Delhi15 Feb 2012

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 260A

…on as to when the findings of facts recorded by the Tribunal can be interfered with in a reference made under Section 66 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. The Supreme Court referred to the leading case of Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v. Bairstow, (1955) 28 ITR 579 (H.L.) decided by the House of Lords in which Viscount Simonds observed as under: - “For it is universally conceded that, though it is a pure finding of fact, it may be set aside on grounds which have been stated in various ways but are, I think, fairly summarized by saying that the court should take that course if it appears that the Com…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. KULWANT RAI

Accordingly, the present appeal is, hereby, dismissed

ITA/86/2006HC Delhi13 Feb 2007

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.CHATURVEDI

Section 132Section 260A

…* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI + ITA No. 86/2006 % Judgment reserved on: 22nd January , 2007 Judgment delivered on: 13th Februay, 2007 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI (CENTRAL) -II ARA CENTRE, E-2, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. NEW DELHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr.R.D.Jolly, Adv. versus SHRI KULWANT RAI 12, AURANGZEB LANE NEW DELHI-110001 ..... Respondent Through:Mr.RajivShakdhar, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Sandeep Mittal,Adv. Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgme…

M/S BHAGAT CONST. CO.P.LTD vs. CIT & ORS

ITA/85/1999HC Delhi16 Nov 2000

…missible material. (4) When any finding is based on no evidence or material, it involves a question of law. In other words, if the Tribunal acts on irrelevant materials .and evidence, a question of law is involved. 6. In Edwarils v. Bairstow & Another (1955) 28 ITR 579 (HL), Lord Simonds 'l obsened that even a pure finding of fact may be set aside by the Court if it appears that the commissioner has acted without any evidence or on a view of the facts which could not be reasonably entertained. Lord Radcliffe stated that no misconception may appear on the face of the case, but it may be that the facts found are s…