1 SCC 380, Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khagumsab v. Kumar

4 SCC 342Reported decision2000#9052 most cited

What is 1 SCC 380, Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khagumsab v. Kumar authority for?

The Income Tax Act, 1922, Section 2(6A)(e) requires a shareholder to be registered on the company's register of members for its provisions to apply. This principle was also considered in relation to the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 2(22)(e).

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2018.

Also referred to as

Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khagumsab v. Kumar · 1 SCC 380 · 2000 · Section 2(6A)(e) · 1922 Act · Section 2(22)(e) · Income Tax Act · 1961 · shareholder · register of members · dividend · Hindu Undivided Family

Judgments citing 1 SCC 380, Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khagumsab v. Kumar

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mantec Consultants Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department stands

ITA 5392/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri B.B. Bhagat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40aSection 9Section 9(1)

…ilities, and the administration of law must adopt that 7.- general exception in the consideration of particular cases - UP SRTC v. Imiiaz Hussain [2006] 1 SCC 380, Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khagumsab v. Kumar [2006] 1 SCC 46, Mohammad Gazi v. State of MP [2000] 4 SCC 342 and Gvrsharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee [1996] 2 SCC 459." 9 Assessment year 2010-11 5.1.1 As no distinguishing fact has been brought to our notice by the Ld. Sr. DR on this issue, respectfully following the order of the Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case as aforementioned, we dismiss ground nos. 3 and 4 of the department’s app…

DCIT 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Chemical Process Piping P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1503/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Dcit 14(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Chemical Process Room No.470, 4Th Floor Piping Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Cpe Plots, Bsd Marg Maharshikarve Road Off. Sion Trombay Road Mumbai – 400 020 Govandi, Mumbai – 400 088 Pan/Gir No. Aaccc6212D Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(2)

…es, and the administration of law must adopt that general exception in the consideration of particular cases, (see U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Imtiaz Hussain [2006] 1 SCC 380, Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khagumsab v. Kumar [2006] 1 SCC 46, Mohammad Gazi v. State of MP [2000] 4 SCC 342 and Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee [1996] 2 SCC 459." The contention of the appellant is accepted by respectfully following the above decisions of Jurisdictional Hon. ITAT, which is based on the legal maxim of "the law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform" as held by Hon. Supreme Court (supra). It is evident…

National Travel Services vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi VIII

C.A. No.-002068-002071 - 2012Supreme Court18 Jan 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

Section 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 23A

…in the context of a Hindu Undivided Family. Sarathy Mudaliar’s case was followed in this judgment, and it was expressly stated that there was no conflict between this judgment and another judgment, namely, C.I.T. vs. Rameshwari Lal Sanwarmal, (1972) 4 SCC 342, and that the Revenue’s contention to refer Sarathy Mudaliar’s case to a larger Bench was turned down. 8) The effect of these two judgments is clearly to hold that before Section 2(6A) (e) of the 1922 Act can be attracted, the “shareholder” referred to in the said provision must be a shareholder whose name is on the register of members o…

ITO, Chennai vs. A.L.Homes, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1427/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 31.10.2017
Section 801BSection 801B(10)Section 80ISection 8O

…the administration of law must adopt that general exception in the consideration of particular cases. [see U. P. S. R. T. C. v. Imtiaz Hussain [2006] 1 SCC 380, Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab v. Kumar [2006] 1 SCC 46, Mohammed Gazi v. State of M. P. [2000] 4 SCC 342 and Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee [1996] 2 SCC 459]. 21. Further the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Revathi Equipment Ltd., 298 ITR 67 (Mad.) while considering the issue of retrospective amendment introduced in relation to the levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Act observed as under: “held, d…

DCIT 10(2), Mumbai vs. United Helicharters P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6917/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. United Helicharters Tax-10(2), Pvt Ltd Room No.432, 4Th Floor, 238, Hindustan Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Khohinoor Complex, Mumbai 400 020 Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai 400 064. Pan: Aaacu 3352N Appellant .. Respondent

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 40Section 44ASection 9(1)(vii)

…that general exception in the consideration of particular cases. (see U.P.5.R. T.e v. Imtiaz Hussain [2006J 1 SCC 380, 8 DCIT Vs. M/s. United Helicharters P.Ltd. Shaikh Salim Ha;i Abdul Khagumsab v. Kumar [2006J 1 SCC 46, Mohammad Gazi v. State of MP [2000J 4 SCC 342 and Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee [1996J 2 SCC 459." Similarly, while dealing with a question as to whether an assessee can be penalized for failure to carry out an act prior to its incorporation the Apex Court in the case of Lite Insurance Corporation of India v. c/T [1996J 219 ITR 410 made following observations. "11. It is ob…

M/S. Shivji Palace Hotel & Club Pvt. Ltd., Saharanpur vs. DCIT, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5587/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Anil Chopra, FCA & Shri V.K. Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…sibilities, and the administration of law must adopt that general exception in the consideration of particular cases - UP SRTC v. Imtiaz Hussain [2006J 1 SCC 380, Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khagumsab v. Kumar [2006J 1 SCC 46, Mohammad Gazi Vs. State of MP [2000J 4 SCC 342 and Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee [1996J 2 SCC 459. " “Broom Legal Maxims (Page 73 Tenth Edition) Actus Curle Neminem Gravabit- An act of the court shall prejudice no man. This maxim “ is founded upon justice and good sense; and affords a safe and certain guide for the administration of law”. In virtue of it, where a case stands…

M/S. Shivji Palace Hotel & Club Pvt. Ltd., Saharanpur vs. DCIT, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5586/DEL/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Anil Chopra, FCA & Shri V.K. Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…sibilities, and the administration of law must adopt that general exception in the consideration of particular cases - UP SRTC v. Imtiaz Hussain [2006J 1 SCC 380, Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khagumsab v. Kumar [2006J 1 SCC 46, Mohammad Gazi Vs. State of MP [2000J 4 SCC 342 and Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee [1996J 2 SCC 459. " “Broom Legal Maxims (Page 73 Tenth Edition) Actus Curle Neminem Gravabit- An act of the court shall prejudice no man. This maxim “ is founded upon justice and good sense; and affords a safe and certain guide for the administration of law”. In virtue of it, where a case stands…

M/S. Shivji Palace Hotel & Club Pvt. Ltd., Saharanpur vs. DCIT, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5584/DEL/2014[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2016AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Anil Chopra, FCA & Shri V.K. Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…sibilities, and the administration of law must adopt that general exception in the consideration of particular cases - UP SRTC v. Imtiaz Hussain [2006J 1 SCC 380, Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khagumsab v. Kumar [2006J 1 SCC 46, Mohammad Gazi Vs. State of MP [2000J 4 SCC 342 and Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee [1996J 2 SCC 459. " “Broom Legal Maxims (Page 73 Tenth Edition) Actus Curle Neminem Gravabit- An act of the court shall prejudice no man. This maxim “ is founded upon justice and good sense; and affords a safe and certain guide for the administration of law”. In virtue of it, where a case stands…

M/S. Shivji Palace Hotel & Club Pvt. Ltd., Saharanpur vs. DCIT, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5583/DEL/2014[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2016AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Anil Chopra, FCA & Shri V.K. Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…sibilities, and the administration of law must adopt that general exception in the consideration of particular cases - UP SRTC v. Imtiaz Hussain [2006J 1 SCC 380, Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khagumsab v. Kumar [2006J 1 SCC 46, Mohammad Gazi Vs. State of MP [2000J 4 SCC 342 and Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee [1996J 2 SCC 459. " “Broom Legal Maxims (Page 73 Tenth Edition) Actus Curle Neminem Gravabit- An act of the court shall prejudice no man. This maxim “ is founded upon justice and good sense; and affords a safe and certain guide for the administration of law”. In virtue of it, where a case stands…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mantee Consultants Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 4497/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. P.Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. B. B. Bhagat Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40aSection 9

…ssibilities, and the administration of law must adopt that general exception in the consideration of particular cases - UP SRTC v. Imtiaz Hussain [2006] 1 SCC 380, Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khagumsab v. Kumar [2006] 1 SCC 46, Mohammad Gazi v. State of MP [2000] 4 SCC 342 and Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee [1996] 2 SCC 459.” 5 Page 6 of 6 13. In view of above observations we confirm the order of CIT (A) in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 7395110/- u/s 40a (i) of the Income tax Act. 14. In the result appeal of revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15.01.2016. - - (H.S.SIDH…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd

The appeals are disposed of in above terms

ITA/893/2010HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

…. Sesh Reddy, (1996) 5 SCC 21 analyzed the corresponding provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and approved the decision in Skandia (supra). Thereafter, in New India Assurance Co., Shimla v. Kamla and Ors., (2001) 4 SCC 342, the Supreme Court referred to the decision of the two Judge Bench in Skandia(supra), and the three Judge Bench decision in Sohan Lal Passi(supra) and held that the insurer who has been made liable to pay the compensation to third MAC. APP. No.893/2010 & 34/2011 Page 8 of 14 parties on account of certificate of insurance iss…

CIT vs. Motiwala & Sons

The appeals are disposed of in above terms

ITA/34/2011HC Delhi22 Sept 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

…. Sesh Reddy, (1996) 5 SCC 21 analyzed the corresponding provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and approved the decision in Skandia (supra). Thereafter, in New India Assurance Co., Shimla v. Kamla and Ors., (2001) 4 SCC 342, the Supreme Court referred to the decision of the two Judge Bench in Skandia(supra), and the three Judge Bench decision in Sohan Lal Passi(supra) and held that the insurer who has been made liable to pay the compensation to third MAC. APP. No.893/2010 & 34/2011 Page 8 of 14 parties on account of certificate of insurance iss…

1 SCC 380, Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khagumsab v. Kumar (4 SCC 342) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax