Hero Vinoth (Minor) v. Seshammal

5 SCC 545Reported decision2006#2113 most cited

What is Hero Vinoth (Minor) v. Seshammal authority for?

The High Court's power to interfere with lower appellate court orders in second appeals is confined to substantial questions of law, and it cannot re-appreciate evidence or disturb findings of fact. If two inferences of fact are possible from a given set of circumstances, the one drawn by the lower appellate court will not be interfered with.

55

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal · Section 100 CPC · Income Tax Act appeals · substantial question of law · second appeal · High Court jurisdiction · interference with findings of fact · re-appreciation of evidence · two inferences of fact · ITAT appeal to High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 69CSection 10ASection 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 37Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act

Issues it is cited on

stpi unittest of enduring benefitsection 203convertible foreign exchangesoftware technology parksection 132(5)section 100section 10(2)section 39speculative transactionsection 153(c)(1)scheme of arrangement

Judgments citing Hero Vinoth (Minor) v. Seshammal

PRATAP SINGH RATHI,GHAZIABAD vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), KANPUR

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 502/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Sh. Pratap Singh Rathi, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of C-143, Surya Nagar, Income Tax , Ghaziabad Knp At Meerut Pin 201 001 Pan No. Ahkpr0582M (Appellant)M (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Shrey Jain &For Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…h the orders passed by the Courts below is confined to hearing on substantial question of law and interference with finding of the fact is not warranted if it involves re-appreciation of evidence. The Supreme Court in Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545 has also held that "in a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of fact are possible, the one drawn by the lower appellate court will not be interfered by the High Court in second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible." It has also held that there is a difference between question of law and a "substantial quest…

ITO, GHAZIABAD vs. NUPUR GARG, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2116/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Saif Ali, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69A

…h the orders passed by the Courts below is confined to hearing on substantial question of law and interference with finding of the fact is not warranted if it involves re-appreciation of evidence. The Supreme Court in Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545 has also held that…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. vs. M/S GOLDSTONE CEMENTS LTD.

ITA/8/2022HC Gauhati16 Dec 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

For Respondent: Dr. A. Saraf, Senior Advocate
Section 132Section 153ASection 260ASection 68

…rchid Finlease Pvt. Ltd?” 10. Apt therefore to first determine whether the questions framed by this Court as stated above involves a substantial question of law or not. The Apex Court in the case of Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs. Seshammal, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 545 has held in paragraphs Nos. 21 – 24 as hereunder:- Page No.# 9/29 “21. The phrase “substantial question law”, as occurring in the amended Section 100 of the CPC is not defined in the Code. The word substantial, as qualifying “question of law”, means - of having substance, essential, real, of sound worth, important or considerable. It is to be und…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 5 4, MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. L AND T VALDEL ENGINEERING LIMITED, BANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for all assessment years under consideration

ITA 4767/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

…r a just and proper decision of the case. It has been held that entirely a new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in a case unless, it goes to the root of the matter. In 'HERO VINOTH (MINOR) VS. SESHAMMAL', (2006) 5 SCC 545 while dealing with the scope of Section 260A of the Act, it was held that this court will not interfere with findings of the court, unless the courts have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence or have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously or the decision is based on no evidence. The aforesaid decisions…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI vs. L AND T VALDEL ENGINEERING LIMITED, BANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for all assessment years under consideration

ITA 4715/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

…r a just and proper decision of the case. It has been held that entirely a new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in a case unless, it goes to the root of the matter. In 'HERO VINOTH (MINOR) VS. SESHAMMAL', (2006) 5 SCC 545 while dealing with the scope of Section 260A of the Act, it was held that this court will not interfere with findings of the court, unless the courts have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence or have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously or the decision is based on no evidence. The aforesaid decisions…

DCIT CC -5 (4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. L AND T VALDEL ENGINEERING LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for all assessment years under consideration

ITA 4684/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

…r a just and proper decision of the case. It has been held that entirely a new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in a case unless, it goes to the root of the matter. In 'HERO VINOTH (MINOR) VS. SESHAMMAL', (2006) 5 SCC 545 while dealing with the scope of Section 260A of the Act, it was held that this court will not interfere with findings of the court, unless the courts have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence or have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously or the decision is based on no evidence. The aforesaid decisions…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 5 4 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. L AND T VALDEL ENGINEERING LIMITED, BANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for all assessment years under consideration

ITA 4683/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

…r a just and proper decision of the case. It has been held that entirely a new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in a case unless, it goes to the root of the matter. In 'HERO VINOTH (MINOR) VS. SESHAMMAL', (2006) 5 SCC 545 while dealing with the scope of Section 260A of the Act, it was held that this court will not interfere with findings of the court, unless the courts have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence or have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously or the decision is based on no evidence. The aforesaid decisions…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 5 4, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. L AND T VALDEL ENGINEERING LIMITED, KARNATAKA

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for all assessment years under consideration

ITA 4682/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

…r a just and proper decision of the case. It has been held that entirely a new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in a case unless, it goes to the root of the matter. In 'HERO VINOTH (MINOR) VS. SESHAMMAL', (2006) 5 SCC 545 while dealing with the scope of Section 260A of the Act, it was held that this court will not interfere with findings of the court, unless the courts have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence or have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously or the decision is based on no evidence. The aforesaid decisions…

LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO M/S L & T VA;DE; ENGINEERING LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4) MUMBAI (EARLIER AO DCITM CIRCLE 11(5) BANGALORE, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for all assessment years under consideration

ITA 4555/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

…r a just and proper decision of the case. It has been held that entirely a new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in a case unless, it goes to the root of the matter. In 'HERO VINOTH (MINOR) VS. SESHAMMAL', (2006) 5 SCC 545 while dealing with the scope of Section 260A of the Act, it was held that this court will not interfere with findings of the court, unless the courts have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence or have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously or the decision is based on no evidence. The aforesaid decisions…

LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO M/S L & T VALDEL ENGINEERING LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for all assessment years under consideration

ITA 4554/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

…r a just and proper decision of the case. It has been held that entirely a new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in a case unless, it goes to the root of the matter. In 'HERO VINOTH (MINOR) VS. SESHAMMAL', (2006) 5 SCC 545 while dealing with the scope of Section 260A of the Act, it was held that this court will not interfere with findings of the court, unless the courts have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence or have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously or the decision is based on no evidence. The aforesaid decisions…

LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO M/S L & T VALDEL ENGINEERING LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI EARLIER AO DCIT, CIRCLE 11(5) BANGLORE, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for all assessment years under consideration

ITA 4553/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

…r a just and proper decision of the case. It has been held that entirely a new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in a case unless, it goes to the root of the matter. In 'HERO VINOTH (MINOR) VS. SESHAMMAL', (2006) 5 SCC 545 while dealing with the scope of Section 260A of the Act, it was held that this court will not interfere with findings of the court, unless the courts have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence or have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously or the decision is based on no evidence. The aforesaid decisions…

LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO M/S L & T VALDEL ENGINEERING LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4) MUMBAI(EARLIER AO DCIT, CIRCLE 11(5) BANGALORE ), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for all assessment years under consideration

ITA 4552/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

…r a just and proper decision of the case. It has been held that entirely a new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in a case unless, it goes to the root of the matter. In 'HERO VINOTH (MINOR) VS. SESHAMMAL', (2006) 5 SCC 545 while dealing with the scope of Section 260A of the Act, it was held that this court will not interfere with findings of the court, unless the courts have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence or have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously or the decision is based on no evidence. The aforesaid decisions…

LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI (EARLIER AO DCIT, CIRCLE 11(5) BANGLORE ., MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for all assessment years under consideration

ITA 4551/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

…r a just and proper decision of the case. It has been held that entirely a new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in a case unless, it goes to the root of the matter. In 'HERO VINOTH (MINOR) VS. SESHAMMAL', (2006) 5 SCC 545 while dealing with the scope of Section 260A of the Act, it was held that this court will not interfere with findings of the court, unless the courts have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence or have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously or the decision is based on no evidence. The aforesaid decisions…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2938/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…Ram Kumar Aggarwal &Anr. vs. Thawar Das (through LRs), (1999) 7 SCC 303 has reiterated that under Section 100 of the Code of Civil fact is not warranted if it involves re-appreciation of evidence. The Supreme Court in Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545 has also held that “in a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of fact are possible, the one drawn by the lower appellate court will not be interfered by the High Court in second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible.” It has also held that there is a difference between question of law and a “substantial quest…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2937/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…Ram Kumar Aggarwal &Anr. vs. Thawar Das (through LRs), (1999) 7 SCC 303 has reiterated that under Section 100 of the Code of Civil fact is not warranted if it involves re-appreciation of evidence. The Supreme Court in Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545 has also held that “in a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of fact are possible, the one drawn by the lower appellate court will not be interfered by the High Court in second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible.” It has also held that there is a difference between question of law and a “substantial quest…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2936/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…Ram Kumar Aggarwal &Anr. vs. Thawar Das (through LRs), (1999) 7 SCC 303 has reiterated that under Section 100 of the Code of Civil fact is not warranted if it involves re-appreciation of evidence. The Supreme Court in Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545 has also held that “in a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of fact are possible, the one drawn by the lower appellate court will not be interfered by the High Court in second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible.” It has also held that there is a difference between question of law and a “substantial quest…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2935/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…Ram Kumar Aggarwal &Anr. vs. Thawar Das (through LRs), (1999) 7 SCC 303 has reiterated that under Section 100 of the Code of Civil fact is not warranted if it involves re-appreciation of evidence. The Supreme Court in Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545 has also held that “in a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of fact are possible, the one drawn by the lower appellate court will not be interfered by the High Court in second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible.” It has also held that there is a difference between question of law and a “substantial quest…

MUMTAZ DILAWAR GANI,,BHARUCH vs. THE ITO, WARD-1,, BHARUCH

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1443/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.1442 & 1443/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 & 2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Mumtaz Dilawar Gani Income Tax Officer, 6, White House, Near Railway Ward-1, Bharuch Vs. Crossing, Dahej Byepass Road, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bharuch-392001 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं /.Pan/Gir No.: Adcpg 1175 D (अपीलाथ" /Assessee ) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate & Ms. Disha Kharod, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23/05/2023

For Appellant: Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…consideration being the need for striking a judicious balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis." 20. In Hero Vinoth (Minor) v. Seshammal reported in [2006] 5 SCC 545, 556 this Court has observed that: "The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well- recognised exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from p…

MUMTAZ DILAWAR GANI,,BHARUCH vs. THE ITO, WARD-1,, BHARUCH

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1442/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.1442 & 1443/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 & 2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Mumtaz Dilawar Gani Income Tax Officer, 6, White House, Near Railway Ward-1, Bharuch Vs. Crossing, Dahej Byepass Road, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bharuch-392001 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं /.Pan/Gir No.: Adcpg 1175 D (अपीलाथ" /Assessee ) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate & Ms. Disha Kharod, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23/05/2023

For Appellant: Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…consideration being the need for striking a judicious balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis." 20. In Hero Vinoth (Minor) v. Seshammal reported in [2006] 5 SCC 545, 556 this Court has observed that: "The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well- recognised exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from p…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. PILOT INDUSTRIES LIMITED

ITA/411/2022HC Delhi19 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153A

…halsa Motor Limited & Ors., (1990) 4 SCC 659 has held that the High Court was not justified in law in reversing, in second appeal, the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below. The Supreme Court in Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545 has also held that “in a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of fact are possible, the one drawn by the lower appellate court will not be interfered by the High Court in second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible.” 15. Consequently, this Court is of the view that no substantial question of law arises of co…

Showing 1–20 of 55 · Page 1 of 3