Sudarshan Silks & Sarees v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka

12 SCC 458Reported decision2008#18822 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2015.

Read the full judgment

Judgments citing Sudarshan Silks & Sarees v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka

M/S.Premier Breveries Ltd.Karnataka vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin

C.A. No.-001569-001569 - 2007Supreme Court10 Mar 2015
Section 256Section 256(2)Section 37

…present case, the question of law referred to the High Court for its opinion was, as to whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the findings of the CIT (Appeals) in canceling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c). Question 3 (2008) 12 SCC 458 Page 9 JUDGMENT Page 9 of 18 as to perversity of the findings recorded by the Tribunal on facts was neither raised nor referred to the High Court for its opinion. The Tribunal is the final court of fact. The decision of the Tribunal on the facts can be gone into by the High Court in the reference jurisdiction only if a question has been r…

M/S.Premier Breveries Ltd.Karnataka vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin

C.A. No.-001569-001569 - 2007Supreme Court10 Mar 2015
Section 256Section 256(2)Section 37

…present case, the question of law referred to the High Court for its opinion was, as to whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the findings of the CIT (Appeals) in canceling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c). Question 3 (2008) 12 SCC 458 Page 9 JUDGMENT Page 9 of 18 as to perversity of the findings recorded by the Tribunal on facts was neither raised nor referred to the High Court for its opinion. The Tribunal is the final court of fact. The decision of the Tribunal on the facts can be gone into by the High Court in the reference jurisdiction only if a question has been r…

Commissioner of Income Tax-(TDS) vs. M/s. Vijay Bhargavi Chit Funds Ltd

ITTA/64/2013HC Telangana09 Jul 2013
Section 28

…at had been given by the assessing authority which he himself failed to do. Moreover, the learned Tribunal is the final fact finding authority as held by the Apex Court in the case of Sudarshan Silks & Sarees vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka - (2008) 12 SCC 458. As such while considering the revision filed by the revisionist and even considering the grounds as raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist, no perversity or illegality emerges and consequently no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the instant revision as well as the connected revision is dismissed at the admission stage.…

Commnr. of Customs (Import) vs. Stoneman Marble Industries

C.A. No.-004371-004383 - 2004Supreme Court21 Jan 2011
Section 111Section 112Section 125Section 130A

…challenged on the ground of perversity, in the sense set out above, that a question of law can be said to arise.” 15. Thus tested, we are in complete agreement with the High Court that the questions raised by the Revenue for reference could not be 5 (2008) 12 SCC 458 9 said to be questions of law. It bears repetition that the Revenue did not specifically challenge the finding of the Tribunal that the facts in the instant cases were similar to those in M/s. Stonemann Marble Industries (supra), which was essentially a finding of fact. Although, we do find some substance in the submission of learned coun…

Sudarshan Silks & Sarees v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka (12 SCC 458) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax