1 SCR 490; Lakshmi Raman Acharya v. Chandan Singh & Ors.

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Pratap Technocrats Pvt. Ltd

Bench: INDERJEET SINGH,VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Manish Kumar Singhal

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,UMA SHANKER VYAS

…e needs to be a consistent approach towards awarding compensation, and unless there exist special circumstances, the courts should uniformly levy fines up to twice the cheque amount along with simple interest @ 9% p.a. [R. Vijayan v. Baby, (2012) 1 SCC 260, para 20: (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 79: (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 520]” 39. Therefore, the amount of ₹1,20,000/- on the principal of ₹4,00,000/- cannot be said to be excessive and no interference is required with it. 40. No other point was urged. 41. In view of the above, the present revision fails, and the same is dismissed. P a g e | 30 2025:HHC:1971…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Pali Textile Common Effluent Treatment Plant

Bench: SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR,KULDEEP MATHUR

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Shri Gulab Singh Bhandari

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,MUNNURI LAXMAN

Principal Commnr of Income Tax-1, Khurdha vs. Mamata Mohapatra

Bench: DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI,MR. JUSTICE GOURISHANKAR SATAPATHY

The Mangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd vs. Sri A Chandrasekhar

Bench: G.NARENDAR,P.N.DESAI

…idering the earlier decisions of this Court, in 31 paragraphs 49 to 52, it was observed and held as under: “49. The views expressed in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1983) 2 SCC 433 were echoed in CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd. (1985) 1 SCC 260 in the following words: (SCC p. 264, para 3) “3. … Article 226 is not meant to short-circuit or circumvent statutory procedures. It is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations, as for instance where the very vires of the statute is in question or where private or public wrongs are…

M/S.Janaki Rama Enterprises [P] Ltd vs. Dy.Commissioner of Incometax

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,T.AMARNATH GOUD

…the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court does not, in the absence of perversity, upset concurrent factual findings. It is not for the Revisional Court to re-analyze and re-interpret the evidence on record. were 28. In R.Vijayan vs. Baby and Another (2012) 1 SCC 260 this Court observed that the object of Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act is both punitive as also compensatory and restitutive. It provides a single forum and single proceeding for enforcement of criminal liability by reason of dishonour of cheque and for enforcement of 4(2006) 1 ALD CrtaOO (A.P.) 5(2019)4 SCC 197 10 the civil liabil…

Rittal India Pvt. Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ltu

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice G.Narendar

…be considered is his financial hardship. In support of his contention he would place reliance on the ruling rendered in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal Vs. Dunlop India Ltd. And Others reported in AIR (1985) 1 SCC 260. The learned counsel would take the 5 court through the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court set out in paragraph 5 which reads as under:- “…….In cases where denial of interim relief may lead to public mischief, grave irreparable private injury or shake a citizen’s faith in th…

Sri. Bheemappa Gurappa Hebballi vs. The State of Karnataka

Appeal is dismissed as

Bench: HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR,G.NARENDAR

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 06T H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No.100186/2018 [KLR-CON] BETWEEN: SRI. BHEEMAPPA GURAPPA HEBBALLI S/O GURAPPA HEBBALLI AGE:49 YEARS, OCC:AGRI. R/O KALLIMATA ONI, NAVALAGUND, TQ:NAVALAGUND, DIST:DHARWAD. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR R GUNJALLI, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHARWAD DISTRICT. DHARWAD.…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Epson India Pvt. Ltd

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

…his Affidavit dated 08-01-2018 that the Revenue Department relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDAN NAGAR, WEST BENGAL v/s DUNLOP INDIA LTD. AND OTHERS reported in (1985) 1 SCC 260 has chosen to file this writ petition on the ground that the ITAT in its impugned order dated 10-03-2017, without properly appreciating the orders passed by the TPO, Assessing Officer and the DRP proceeded to stay the demand, subject to payment of Rs.2.00 Crores in addition to Rs.3.32 Crores paid against the outstanding demand of Rs.22.…

Google India Private Limited vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mrs.Justice B.V.Nagarathna Writ Petition No.55578/2017 (T-It)

…the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department drew my attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal vs. Dunlop India Ltd., and others { (1985) 1 SCC 260}, to contend that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated therein that while granting any interim order, Courts must be circumspect, particularly when it concerns the revenue. He further submitted that when this Court in the earlier Writ Petition had directed payment of 55% and retaining balance of 20% as far as this 9 very assessee is…

The Commisioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S.Clear Water Technologies

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs Justice K.S.Mudagal

…SC 325 9 (2018) 1 SCC 560 10 (2015) 9 SCC 622 11 2017 SCC Online Ker 23924 12 (2009) 2 SCC 513 13 (2020) 4 SCC 695 14 (2019) 4 SCC 197 15 (2019) 18 SCC 106 16 (2020) 2 SCC 514 17 (2021) 5 SCC 283 18 (2015) 17 SCC 368 19 (2015) 8 SCC 378 20 (2012) 1 SCC 260 Crl.A.No.391/2014 8 M Submissions of Sri Chandrashekaran, learned Counsel for the respondent/accused in support of the impugned order: 14. No doubt there was presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act and the accused admitted his signature on the cheque. However, the said presumption stands…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal

…e of the legislative intent manifested in the provisions of the Act and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the enactment.”” (See: G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman & Raman Ltd., AIR 1952 SC 192; CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd., (1985) 1 SCC 260; Ramendra Kishore Biswas v. State of Tripura, (1999) 1 SCC 472; Shivgonda Anna Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 3 SCC 5; C.A. Abraham v. ITO, (1961) 2 SCR 765; Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433; H.B. Gandhi v. Gopi Nath and Sons, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 312; Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8…