Hero Vinoth (Minor) v. Seshammal

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Infosys Bpo Ltd

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

…principle of law that unless and until a finding of fact is demonstrated to be perverse, this Court in exercise of power under Section 260-A of the Act, would not interfere with the findings of the Court. (SEE: ‘HERO VINOTH (MINOR) VS. SESHAMMAL’, (2006) 5 SCC 545; 'VIJAY KUMAR TALWAR VS. CIT', (2011) 1 SCC 673; 'UNION OF INDIA VS. IBRAHIM 7 UDDIN', (2012) 8 SCC 148 and 'MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS VS. CIT', (2016) 2 SCC 556. For the aforementioned reasons, the third substantial question of law is also answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In view of precedi…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Jindal Aluminium Limited

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

…d 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 d…

Tata Coffee Limited vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the same fails and is hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

…t 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. 6. In the li…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S L & T Valdel Engineering Pvt Ltd

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.57 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), C.R. BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. L & T VALDEL ENGINEERING PVT. LTD., NO.19, SHRUTHA COMPLEX PRIMROSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560025. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR.…

The Director of Income-Tax vs. M/S Sasken Communication

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

…t 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 23 applying the law erroneously or the decision is based on no evidence. Th…

Pr Commissioner of vs. M/S Softbrands India

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

…tury Spg. And Mfg. Co. Ltd. the Constitution Bench expressed agreement with the following view taken by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Rimmalapudi Subba Rao v. Noony Veeraju.” 30. In the case of Hero Vinoth (Minor) Vs. Seshammal [2006]5 SCC 545, the Two Judges’ Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court following the earlier precedents, summarises the principles in the following manner. The relevant portion of the said judgment at para.24 is quoted below for ready reference: “24. The principles relating to Section 100 CPC relevant for this case may be summarized thus: (i) An in…

Pr Commissioner of vs. M/S Softbrands India

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

…tury Spg. And Mfg. Co. Ltd. the Constitution Bench expressed agreement with the following view taken by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Rimmalapudi Subba Rao v. Noony Veeraju.” 30. In the case of Hero Vinoth (Minor) Vs. Seshammal [2006]5 SCC 545, the Two Judges’ Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court following the earlier precedents, summarises the principles in the following manner. The relevant portion of the said judgment at para.24 is quoted below for ready reference: “24. The principles relating to Section 100 CPC relevant for this case may be summarized thus: (i) An in…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Bahubali Neminath Muttin

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

…onsideration 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) Vs. 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 pr…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Bahubali Neminath Muttin

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

…rall 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.” 16 18. In Hero Vinoth (Minor) Vs. Seshammal, [2006] 5 SCC 545, 556, the Apex 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 fr…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Bahubali Neminath Muttin

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

…rall 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.” 17 19. In Hero Vinoth (Minor) Vs. Seshammal, [2006] 5 SCC 545, 556, the Apex 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 fr…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3 vs. M/s Satyasai Bhavani Hsopitals Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs. Sri S.Venkat Reddy, (PAN ALAPS4009A)

The Commissioner of Income Tax -III vs. Sri T.C. Reddy

The appeal stands dismissed

…HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 577 / 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj) ----Appellant Versus M/s Prestige City Developers P. Ltd., ISF, Kamal Complex, M.I. Road, Jaipur ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi with Mr. Aditya Vijay For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar with Ms. Archana _____________________________________________________ HON'BL…

Chandna Impex P.Ltd vs. Commr.of Customs

The appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated

…ted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden 3 (2002) 8 SCC 715 4 (2004) 12 SCC 505 5 (2007) 4 SCC 118 6 (2009) 3 SCC 287 7 (2006) 5 SCC 545 8 AIR 1962 SC 1314 8 of proof. When we refer to “decision based on no evidence”, it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding”. 11.Tested on the touchstone of the said legal principle, we…

Vijay Kumar Talwar vs. Commnr. of Income Tax, Delhi

The appeals are dismissed

…e of supporting the finding.” 21. A finding of fact may give rise to a substantial question of law, inter alia, in the event the findings are based on no evidence and/or while arriving at the said finding, relevant admissible evidence has not been 3 (2006) 5 SCC 545 1 taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration or legal principles have not been applied in appreciating the evidence, or when the evidence has been misread. (See: Madan Lal Vs. Mst. Gopi & Anr.4; Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi Vs. Rajat Vidyarthi5; Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Vs. Vijay Das…