9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 688X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA [ 2004 (1) TMI 397 - SUPREME COURT] as held the law on the subject is clear. The Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority. Unless it is shown that there is something perverse in its finding, this Court would not interfere. No authority is required for this purpose. That apart, it is settled law that a court of appeal interferes not when the judgment under attack is not right, but only when it is shown to be wrong [Refer: Dollar Co. v. Collector of Madras[ 1975 (5) TMI 87 - SUPREME COURT] ] - Tax case Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. - T.C.A. No. 84 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 21-3-2022 - Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan And The Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Sathya Narayana Pras ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act. Therefore, the appellant / Revenue is before this court with this appeal. 5. To answer the issue involved herein, this court is inclined to look into the findings recorded by the Tribunal in the order impugned herein, which read as follows: 4. It is to be seen that the assessee has already been registered under Sec. 12AA of the Act and it is continuing the registration granted under that section. Therefore, it is admitted by the department that the assessee is a charitable trust eligible for other benefits flowing out of the registration under Sec.12AA. 5. In the paragraph extracted above, the Commissioner of Income-tax himself admits that the assessee is carrying on charitable activity by way o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in its finding, this Court would not interfere. No authority is required for this purpose. But as a large number of authorities are cited, we refer to them: Pragati Computers (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs [(2000) 10 SCC 150], Reliance Silicon (I) (P) Ltd. v. CCE [(1997) 1 SCC 215], Asian Paints India Ltd. v. CCE [(1988) 2 SCC 470 : 1988 SCC (Tax) 201] and Collector of Customs v. Swastic Woollens (P) Ltd. [1988 Supp SCC 796 : 1989 SCC (Tax) 67]. 7.That apart, it is settled law that a court of appeal interferes not when the judgment under attack is not right, but only when it is shown to be wrong [Refer: Dollar Co. v. Collector of Madras, (1975) 2 SCC 730]. 8. Accordingly, the Tax case Appeal filed by the Revenue stands d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
