https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6238 In a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the High Court could not disregard the Tribunal's factual findings or reappreciate evidence unless a question of law arose from those findings. The Tribunal had found, on the evidence, that the jute transactions were those of the assessee-company and not of the alleged principal, and that finding was binding in the advisory jurisdiction. By substituting its own view on contemporaneous records, financing, and brokerage entries, the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction. The profit from the jute transactions was therefore properly includible in the assessee-company's total income. en-us Tue, 12 Jan 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Apr 2015 14:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6238 In a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the High Court could not disregard the Tribunal's factual findings or reappreciate evidence unless a question of law arose from those findings. The Tribunal had found, on the evidence, that the jute transactions were those of the assessee-company and not of the alleged principal, and that finding was binding in the advisory jurisdiction. By substituting its own view on contemporaneous records, financing, and brokerage entries, the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction. The profit from the jute transactions was therefore properly includible in the assessee-company's total income. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 12 Jan 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6238