1. Nirmal Textiles (1997) 224 ITR 378 (Gujarat High Corut) 2. CIT v. Essar Tele

3 SCC 516Supreme Court of India1987#12619 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2022.

Judgments citing 1. Nirmal Textiles (1997) 224 ITR 378 (Gujarat High Corut) 2. CIT v. Essar Tele

ACIT(TDS)-2(2),, MUMBAI vs. SODEXO SVC INDIA PVT. LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and the cross-objection of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1402/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1402/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Acit (Tds)-2(2) Sodexo Svc India Pvt. Ltd. Room No.717, K. G. Mittal Nesco Complex, Indabrator Vs. Building, W.E. Highway, Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg, Goregaon (E), Mumbai- Charni Road, West , 400051. Mumbai-400002. Co. No.108/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita. No.1402/Mum/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sodexo Svc India Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Acit (Tds)-2(2) Nesco Complex, Indabrator Room No.717, K. G. Mittal Vs. Building, W.E. Highway, Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg, Goregaon (E), Mumbai- Charni Road, West , Mumbai- 400051. 400002. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aalcs9822Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Jasbir Chouhan Assessee By: Shri Gautam Thakkar & Shri Yazdi P. Jijina सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal As Well As Cross-Objection Against The Order Dated 28.12.2018 Passed

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Thakkar & Shri YazdiFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan
Section 133ASection 201(1)

…j.); ii) Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v/s Union of India, [2016] SCC Online (Guj.) 4788; iii) CIT v/s Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd., [2014] 367 ITR 466 (SC); iv) Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. v/s CIT, [1980] 1 SCC 139; v) CIT v/s Shah Sadiq & Sons, [1987] 3 SCC 516 (SC). 6. Learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the observations of the first appellate authority. 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused materials available on record in the light of the decisions cited. So far as the factual aspect of the issue is concerned, there is no dispute that in terms of section 200(3), the ass…

GURVINDER KAUR BHATIA ,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

ITA 151/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2015-16

Section 263

…t 2013 in Explanation (1) to section 10(10D) is prospective in nature, assessee relied following judgments: 1. Nirmal Textiles (1997) 224 ITR 378 (Gujarat High Corut) 2. CIT vs. Essar Teleholding Ltd. (2018) 3 SCC 253 3. CIT vs. M/s Shah Sadiq and Sons (1987) 3 SCC 516 4. CIT vs. Vatika Township Private ltd. (2015) 1SCC 1 5. CIT vs. Sarkar Builders (2015) 7 SCC 579 9. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative(DR) vehemently argued strongly supporting the detailed finding of Ld. Pr. CIT. 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through the judgments referre…

HARLEEN KAUR BHATIA,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

ITA 150/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2015-16

Section 263

…t 2013 in Explanation (1) to section 10(10D) is prospective in nature, assessee relied following judgments: 1. Nirmal Textiles (1997) 224 ITR 378 (Gujarat High Corut) 2. CIT vs. Essar Teleholding Ltd. (2018) 3 SCC 253 3. CIT vs. M/s Shah Sadiq and Sons (1987) 3 SCC 516 4. CIT vs. Vatika Township Private ltd. (2015) 1SCC 1 5. CIT vs. Sarkar Builders (2015) 7 SCC 579 9. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative(DR) vehemently argued strongly supporting the detailed finding of Ld. Pr. CIT. 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through the judgments referre…

SODEXO SVC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 980/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy
Section 133ASection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)Section 206A

…(Guj.); ii) Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v/s Union of India, [2016] SCC Online (Guj.) 4788; iii) CIT v/s Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd., [2014] 367 ITR 466 (SC); iv) Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. v/s CIT, [1980] 1 SCC 139; v) CIT v/s Shah Sadiq & Sons, [1987] 3 SCC 516 (SC). 6. Learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the observations of the first appellate authority. 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused materials available on record in the light of the decisions cited. So far as the factual aspect of the issue is concerned, there is no dispute that in terms of section 200(3), the asse…

GUNWANTLAL GODAWAT vs. UNION OF INDIA CUSTOM AND CENTRAL EXCISE THROUGH COMMISSIONER

The appeals are disposed of as indicated above

C.A. No.-004711-004712 - 2011Supreme Court22 Nov 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR

Section 126M

…ch investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed.” 21 I.T. Commissioner Vs. Shah Sadiq & Sons, (1987) 3 SCC 516, page 524 para 15 26 Such repeal gives rise to two questions – What is the effect of (i) the repeal of the Ordinance 6 of 1968, and (ii) the declaration under Section 116(2) of the GOLD ACT? 45. At the time of the making of the GOLD ACT, Parliament was conscious of the existence of the RULES and their repeal by the ORDINANCE and also t…

SUDHAKAR RAI S vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/29755/2016HC Karnataka30 Jan 2017

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna

…e Board and others ([2007]12 SCC 569); in the case of Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd., Vs. Electricity Inspector and ETIO and others ([2007]5 SCC 447); in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P. Vs. M/s. Shah Sadiq and Sons ([1987]3 SCC 516); in the case of Milk Producers Association, Orissa and others Vs. State of Orissa and others ([2006]3 SCC 229); in the case of Nature Lovers Movement Vs. State of Kerala and others ([2009]5 SCC 373); in the case of Amarendra Kumar Mahopatra and others Vs. State of Orissa and others ([2014]4 SCC 583) and in the case of Krishna Devi Mulchand…

VIJAYASHREEPURA KSHEMABIVRUDHI vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/13020/2016HC Karnataka06 Dec 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna

…e Board and others ([2007]12 SCC 569); in the case of Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd., Vs. Electricity Inspector and ETIO and others ([2007]5 SCC 447); in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P. Vs. M/s. Shah Sadiq and Sons ([1987]3 SCC 516); in the case of Milk Producers Association, Orissa and others Vs. State of Orissa and others ([2006]3 SCC 229); in the case of Nature Lovers Movement Vs. State of Kerala and others ([2009]5 SCC 373); in the case of Amarendra Kumar Mahopatra and others Vs. State of Orissa and others ([2014]4 SCC 583) and in the case of Krishna Devi Mulchand…

SRI VIDYA MANOHARA TEERTHA SWAMIGALU vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/17370/2012HC Karnataka02 Jan 2013

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Dilip B Bhosale

…ns, both civil and criminal, may be affected although it is not 51 an uncommon practice to use the saving clause in order to preserve existing rights and to exempt pending litigation. 27.4 In IT COMMISSIONER versus SHAH SADIQ AND SONS – (1987) 3 SCC 516 the Supreme Court observed that whatever rights are expressly saved by the “saving” provision stand saved, but, that does not mean that rights which are not saved by the “savings” provisions are extinguished or stand ipso facto terminated by the mere fact that a new statute repealing the old statute is enacted. Rights which have accrued are…