Advocate in Supreme Court of India - https://criminallawyersimranjeet.wordpress.com. The learned Judges concluded that it was a complete mistake to think that s. "It is always difficult for judges who have not seen and heard the witnesses to refuse to adopt the conclusions of fact of those who have; but that difficulty is greatly aggravated where the Judge who heard them has formed the opinion, not only that their inferences are unsound on the balance (1) (1909) L. 24,976-13-3 on January II, 1946, and Rs. 2,23,397-10-0 on October 13, 1945, to Rs.

nThis appeal at the instance of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter called SEBI) is directed against the majority judgment and final order dated 30. 2,91,397-10-0 on December 29, 1945, and remained at Rs. That section, they opined, contemplated the filing of a return of taxable income, and a return not showing such income was not a return at all in law. The balance in the Rokar fluctuated considerably but on the relevant date January 10, 1946, it stood at Rs.

The books of account of the appellant were not challenged in any other manner except in regard to the interpolations relating to the number of high denomination notes of Rs. 2,81,397-10-0 on January 10, 1946. 2,91,000 were included in this sum of Rs. If the appellant had to disburse such large sums of monies at short notices at the different branches of the appellant and also to its Beoparees apart from financing the Government for grain purchase work which it used to carry on, it would be convenient for it to handle these large sums of monies in high denomination notes of Rs.

The Tribunal in fact took count of this position and after giving due weight to all the circumstances arrived at the conclusion that the appellant might be expected to have possessed as part of its business cash balance at least Rs. These entries showed that there was with the appellant on on January 12, 1946, an aggregate sum of Rs. 2,65,397-10-0 on November 27, 1945, to Rs. Not only had a person no duty but he had even no right to file a return voluntarily, if he had suffered a loss, to 'report' that loss.

The Tribunal had before it the statement of large amounts received by the appellant from the banks, different branches of the appellant and its Beoparees or merchants which showed that between February 6, 1945, and January 11, 1946, amounts exceeding Rs. Advocate Supreme Court India Court had held that statutory fixation of minimum wage Advocate in Supreme Court of India the newspaper industry was violation of fundamental rights of free speech, but after some years the same Court acting under the discretion given by the due process clause took cognizance of altered circumstances in labour relations and held that the imposition of a minimum wage on the Press did not violate the fundamental right (Constitution of the United States of America, Revised and Annotated (1952), U.

5,04,713 had been received by the appellant. 29,284-3-9 on January 12, 1946, when the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetization) Ordinance, [1946, was promulgated. 1,000 each obviously made by the appellant in the accounts for the assessment year in question in the manner aforesaid and even in regard to these interpolations the explanation given by the appellant in regard to the same was accepted by the Tribunal. 22(1) of the Act as it stood prior to the amendment of 1953, and observed that under that section a person was required to file a return only if his total income during the preceding year exceeded the maximum amount which was not chargeable to tax.

3,10,681-13-9 and it was highly probable that the High Denomination notes of Rs. 1,000 aggegrating to Rs. 2,81,397-10-0 the total cash balance thus aggregating to Rs. Even though the Income-tax Officer made capital out of the interpolations and subsequent insertions in the books of account and styled the evidence furnished by them as created or manipulated evidence thus discounting the story of the appellant in regard to the source of these high denomination notes, the Tribunal 312 was definitely of opinion that there was no other reason to suspect the genuineness of the account books in which these interpolations were found.

Nobody had any inkling of the promulgation of the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetization) Ordinance, 1946, on January 12, 1946, and if in the normal course of affairs and situated as the appellant was, the appellant kept these large cash balances in High Denomination Notes of Rs. 22(3) provided for the filing of a voluntary return showing loss, at any time, before assessment. 123 again explained the true import of the law laid down.

The return contemplated was thus only a return of income and not a return of loss and not even a return of income, but a return of taxable income. As a matter of fact the Tribunal accepted these books of account as genuine and worked up its theory on the basis of the entries which obtained in these books of account. 2013, passed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, in Appeal No. Even though large amounts may have been paid out by the appellant in this manner between the said dates, the entries of the balance in Rokar and the balance in Almirah showed that on January 12, 1946, the balance in Rokar was Rs.

1,97,397-10-0 on September 30, 1945, to Rs. 1,000 each and the most natural thing for it to do was to keep these cash balances in as many high denomination notes as possible. 1,000 each, there was nothing surprising or improbable in it. 26,234-3-9 and the balance in Almirah was Rs.