36.In Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

1 SCC 21Supreme Court of India#16339 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Judgments citing 36.In Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Sh. Kesar Lal Bairwa, A-24, Varun Colony, Mandara Stand, New Sanganer Road, Mansarovar, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 381/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 28Section 3Section 56(2)(iii)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…lowable only when clearly authorized. This exception has been laid down in the case of Littman v. Barron (1952) (2) AIR 393 and followed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of CCT (1992) Suppl. 1 SCC 21 and Novopa India Ltd. vs. CCE & C (1994) 73 ELT 769 (SC) and it has been summed up in the words of Lord Lohen,” in case of ambiguity, a taxing statute should be construed in favour of a tax-payer does not apply to a provision giving tax payer relief in certain cases from a section clearly imposing liability”. Therefore, keeping in view the above…

Rupesh Vyas, Indore vs. The ACIT3(1), Indore

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 50/IND/2020[150-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…s of that court in Commissioner of Central Excise New Delhi vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal (2011) 1 SCC 236 (SC) Mangalore Page 18 of 26 Shri Rupesh Vyas Assessment year 2015-16 Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (1992) Suppl. 1 SCC 21 (SC) and the case of Novopan India Ltd. (Supra) but has also confirmed the principles laid down in these decisions. 5.2 Therefore, in view of above facts and judicial pronouncements, in the instant case, despite a number of opportunities, the appellant has failed to prove that LTCG claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of Income Tax Act, 1961 is genuine and it…

M/S. Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 475/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32ASection 35

…ed the ratio laid down in the decision in the case of Sun Export Corporation, Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, (1997) 6 SCC 564 and upheld the ratio laid down in Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs Dy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (1992) Supp 1 SCC 21, which had already been approved by a three Judge Bench in Novopan India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 606. In this case the three Judge Bench had held as follows: "We are, however, of the opinion that, on principle, the decision of this Court in Mangalore Chemicals -and in Union of India v. Wood Papers, referred…

Smt. Padma Rajagopalan, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3)(5), Bangalore

ITA 629/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015 – 16

For Respondent: Shri Prashanth G.S, C.A

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 54F

…the ratio laid down in the decision in the case of' Sun. Export Corporation, Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, (1997)6 SCC564 and upheld the ratio laid down in Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 21 , which had already been approved by a three Judge Bench in Novopan India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, 1994 supp (3) SC'C 606. In this case the three Judge I3cnch had held as follows : “We are, however of the opinion that, on Principle, the decision of this Court in Mangalore Chemicals and in Union of India v. Wood Papers, referr…

Commnr. of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs. M/S. Dilip Kumar and Company

C.A. No.-003327-003327 - 2007Supreme Court30 Jul 2018

Bench: A Bench Of TwoJudges. The Matter Then Went Before A ThreeJudge Bench Consisting One Of Us (Ranjan Gogoi, J.). The Three Judge Bench Having Noticed The Unsatisfactory State Of Law As It Stands Today, Opined That The Dicta In Sun Export Case (Supra), Requires Reconsideration & That Is How The Matter Has Been Placed Before This Constitution Bench. 2

…IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3327 OF 2007 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), MUMBAI …APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. DILIP KUMAR AND COMPANY & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T N . V . R A M A N A , J . 1. This Constitution Bench is setup to examine the correctness of the ratio in Sun Export Corporation, Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, (1997) 6 SCC 564 [hereinafter referred as ‘Sun Export Case’ for brevity], namely the question is What is the interpretative rule to be applied while interpreting…