Ravindranathan Nair v. CIT

247 ITR 178Supreme Court of India2001#2812 most cited

What is Ravindranathan Nair v. CIT authority for?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority. A High Court can only interfere with the Tribunal's factual findings if a specific question alleging perversity of such findings, in the sense that they could not have been reasonably arrived at, has been referred to it.

42

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Ravindranathan Nair v. CIT · ITAT final fact-finding authority · High Court review of facts · perverse finding of fact · Section 260A appeal High Court · question of law perversity · Income Tax Act 1961 · scope of appellate review Tribunal

Also reported as

114 Taxmann 531 SCC 1358

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 73 of the IT Act

Issues it is cited on

section 260section 260asection 26section 142previous yearsection 13section 143companysection 147section 143(3)businesssection 14

Judgments citing Ravindranathan Nair v. CIT

C.I.T vs. Pench Power Ltd

In the result the appeals are dismissed

ITA - 275 / 2008HC Delhi15 Jan 2009
Section 57

…on, we are of the view that there is no perversity in the findings of fact returned by the ITAT. *Tuticorin Alkali* does not apply as the monies invested are not distinct to each other, and are not 'surplus funds'. In *K. Ravindranathan Nair -vs- CIT*, (2001) 247 ITR 178(SC): 2001(1) SCC 135 it has been prescribed that the Tribunal is the final fact finding forum and its decision can be questioned only if it partakes of a perverse nature, that is, it is indicative of an action, opinion or conclusion which could not reasonably be arrived at; that an incorrect conclusion is not invariably perverse unless it is palp…

C.I.T vs. Pench Power Ltd

In the result the appeals are dismissed

ITA - 257 / 2008HC Delhi15 Jan 2009
Section 57

…on, we are of the view that there is no perversity in the findings of fact returned by the ITAT. *Tuticorin Alkali* does not apply as the monies invested are not distinct to each other, and are not 'surplus funds'. In *K. Ravindranathan Nair -vs- CIT*, (2001) 247 ITR 178(SC): 2001(1) SCC 135 it has been prescribed that the Tribunal is the final fact finding forum and its decision can be questioned only if it partakes of a perverse nature, that is, it is indicative of an action, opinion or conclusion which could not reasonably be arrived at; that an incorrect conclusion is not invariably perverse unless it is palp…