398 BHANUMATI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

12 SCC 1Reported decision2010#405 most cited
219

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Bhanumati v. State of Uttar Pradesh · Section 148 Income Tax Act · reassessment notice · income escaping assessment section 147 · sanction for notice section 151 · cash credits section 68 · unexplained expenditure section 69C · speaking order · income tax officer powers section 131 · scrutiny assessment section 143(3) · section 133(6) information call

Sections most often in play

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69C

Issues it is cited on

income-tax officernotice under section 148speaking ordersection 15section 148transfersection 147section 143personsection 14total incomecompany

Judgments citing 398 BHANUMATI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Shri S Thimmaraju vs. The Deputy Director

WP/36310/2017HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

…ar as Respondent 1 is concerned." 139 46. The constitutional validity of any law is to be tested in the teeth of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in: (1) BHANUMATHI vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS - (2010) 12 SCC 1; and (2) STATE OF BIHAR & OTHERS vs BIHAR DISTILLERY LIMITED AND OTHERS – (1997)2 SCC 453. whereunder it came to be held that while judging the constitutionality of an enactment, the court should (a) try to sustain validity of impugned law to the extent possible and it can strike down the enactment only when it is impossible to sustain it; (b…

M Gopi vs. The Joint Director

WP/15918/2013HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

…ar as Respondent 1 is concerned." 139 46. The constitutional validity of any law is to be tested in the teeth of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in: (1) BHANUMATHI vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS - (2010) 12 SCC 1; and (2) STATE OF BIHAR & OTHERS vs BIHAR DISTILLERY LIMITED AND OTHERS – (1997)2 SCC 453. whereunder it came to be held that while judging the constitutionality of an enactment, the court should (a) try to sustain validity of impugned law to the extent possible and it can strike down the enactment only when it is impossible to sustain it; (b…

Shri V Bhaskar vs. The Deputy Director

WP/27744/2018HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

…ar as Respondent 1 is concerned." 139 46. The constitutional validity of any law is to be tested in the teeth of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in: (1) BHANUMATHI vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS - (2010) 12 SCC 1; and (2) STATE OF BIHAR & OTHERS vs BIHAR DISTILLERY LIMITED AND OTHERS – (1997)2 SCC 453. whereunder it came to be held that while judging the constitutionality of an enactment, the court should (a) try to sustain validity of impugned law to the extent possible and it can strike down the enactment only when it is impossible to sustain it; (b…

Geetha Pandit Rao and Anr vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors

In the result, for the foregoing reasons and applying

WP/226494/2020HC Karnataka30 Nov 2020

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice E.S. Indiresh Writ Petition No.7717 Of 2020 (Lb-Res) & Writ Petition No.226494 Of 2020

…October, 2020 produced at Annexure- F and F1. He further submitted that writ petitions are not maintainable in view of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SAYED MOHD. AHMAD KAZMI v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI reported in (2012)12 SCC 1; so also in the case of PADMINI SINGHA v. STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS reported in (2018)10 SCC 561. He further submitted that in view of Rule 3(2) of the Rules, 2020, Notices produced at Annexure-F and F1, fixing meeting on 23rd October, 2020 for No-confidence motion shall be construed to be within the purview of Section 179(3) of the Act and a…

Smt Geetha Pandit Rao vs. The Government of Karnataka

In the result, for the foregoing reasons and applying

WP/7717/2020HC Karnataka30 Nov 2020

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice E.S. Indiresh Writ Petition No.7717 Of 2020 (Lb-Res) & Writ Petition No.226494 Of 2020

…October, 2020 produced at Annexure- F and F1. He further submitted that writ petitions are not maintainable in view of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SAYED MOHD. AHMAD KAZMI v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI reported in (2012)12 SCC 1; so also in the case of PADMINI SINGHA v. STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS reported in (2018)10 SCC 561. He further submitted that in view of Rule 3(2) of the Rules, 2020, Notices produced at Annexure-F and F1, fixing meeting on 23rd October, 2020 for No-confidence motion shall be construed to be within the purview of Section 179(3) of the Act and a…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. M/S Karnataka State Financial

ITA/463/2018HC Karnataka12 Nov 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

…n. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the following judgments: 1. AIR 1951 SC 467: HARLA Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN. 2. (1997) 2 SCC 453: STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS Vs. BIHAR DISTILLERY LTD AND OTHERS. 3. (2010) 12 SCC 1 : BHANUMATI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS. 4. (1996) 3 SCC 709 : STATE OF A.P. AND OTHERS Vs. MCDOWELL & CO. AND OTHERS. 5. (1959) SCR 279 : AIR 1958 SC 538 : SHRI RAM KRISHNA DALMIA AND OTHERS Vs. SHRI JUSTICE S.R. TENDOLKAR AND OTHERS. 6. 1959 SCR 62…

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax-7 vs. M/S Wipro Ge Medical Systems Pvt Ltd

RP/463/2018HC Karnataka21 Dec 2018

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,K.NATARAJAN

…n. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the following judgments: 1. AIR 1951 SC 467: HARLA Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN. 2. (1997) 2 SCC 453: STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS Vs. BIHAR DISTILLERY LTD AND OTHERS. 3. (2010) 12 SCC 1 : BHANUMATI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS. 4. (1996) 3 SCC 709 : STATE OF A.P. AND OTHERS Vs. MCDOWELL & CO. AND OTHERS. 5. (1959) SCR 279 : AIR 1958 SC 538 : SHRI RAM KRISHNA DALMIA AND OTHERS Vs. SHRI JUSTICE S.R. TENDOLKAR AND OTHERS. 6. 1959 SCR 62…

The Commisioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Dell International Services

ITA/235/2018HC Karnataka09 Nov 2018

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,BELLUNKE A.S

…n. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the following judgments: 1. AIR 1951 SC 467: HARLA Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN. 2. (1997) 2 SCC 453: STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS Vs. BIHAR DISTILLERY LTD AND OTHERS. 3. (2010) 12 SCC 1 : BHANUMATI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS. 4. (1996) 3 SCC 709 : STATE OF A.P. AND OTHERS Vs. MCDOWELL & CO. AND OTHERS. 5. (1959) SCR 279 : AIR 1958 SC 538 : SHRI RAM KRISHNA DALMIA AND OTHERS Vs. SHRI JUSTICE S.R. TENDOLKAR AND OTHERS. 6. 1959 SCR 62…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Visakhapatnam vs. L. Suryakantham, Visakhapatnam

ITTA/280/2017HC Telangana08 Oct 2018

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

…tion and in particular have the impugned State enactments relating to entry tax to be tested with reference to both Articles 304(a) and 304(b) of the Constitution for determining their validity? 18. Some of the paragraphs of Jindal’s case (9 Judges) (2017) 12 SCC 1 are essential to refer here. Per the Hon'ble T.S. Thakur, Chief Justice of India (For himself and A.K. Sikri and A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ.) (majority view) 2. In exercise of their legislative powers under Entry 52 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution several States in the country, at least 14 of whom are parties to these proceedings…

The Pr. Commissioner of vs. M/S. Aol Online India Pvt. Ltd

ITA/433/2017HC Karnataka29 Nov 2017

Bench: L.NARAYANA SWAMY (AG.CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

…n. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the following judgments: 1. AIR 1951 SC 467: HARLA Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN. 2. (1997) 2 SCC 453: STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS Vs. BIHAR DISTILLERY LTD AND OTHERS. 3. (2010) 12 SCC 1 : BHANUMATI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS. 4. (1996) 3 SCC 709 : STATE OF A.P. AND OTHERS Vs. MCDOWELL & CO. AND OTHERS. 5. (1959) SCR 279 : AIR 1958 SC 538 : SHRI RAM KRISHNA DALMIA AND OTHERS Vs. SHRI JUSTICE S.R. TENDOLKAR AND OTHERS. 6. 1959 SCR 62…

Smt.K. Sowbaghya vs. Union of India

WP/19732/2014HC Karnataka28 Jan 2016

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

Section 120Section 3Section 44

…ants Pvt. Ltd. vs. Directorate of Enforcement, Crl. M.C.No.5581/2014 dated 9.4.2015 of Delhi High Court; 4. Arun Kumar Mishra vs. Directorate of Enforcement, Crl.M.C.5508/2014 dated 9.4.2015 of Delhi High Court; 5. State of Punjab vs. Bhajan Kaur, (2008) 12 SCC 112; 24 6. M/s. Punjab Tin Supply vs. Central Government, AIR 1984 SC 87; 7. Madisetti Bala Ramul vs. Land Acquisition Officer, (2007) 9 SCC 650; 8. Anant Gopal Sheorey vs. The State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 915; 9. Sangram Singh vs. Election Tribunal Kotah and another, AIR 1955 S.C. 425; 10. Sharif Ud Din vs. Abdul Gani Lone AIR 1980 SC 3…

Smt.K.Sowbaghya vs. Union of India

WP/14649/2014HC Karnataka28 Jan 2016

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

Section 120Section 3Section 44

…ants Pvt. Ltd. vs. Directorate of Enforcement, Crl. M.C.No.5581/2014 dated 9.4.2015 of Delhi High Court; 4. Arun Kumar Mishra vs. Directorate of Enforcement, Crl.M.C.5508/2014 dated 9.4.2015 of Delhi High Court; 5. State of Punjab vs. Bhajan Kaur, (2008) 12 SCC 112; 24 6. M/s. Punjab Tin Supply vs. Central Government, AIR 1984 SC 87; 7. Madisetti Bala Ramul vs. Land Acquisition Officer, (2007) 9 SCC 650; 8. Anant Gopal Sheorey vs. The State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 915; 9. Sangram Singh vs. Election Tribunal Kotah and another, AIR 1955 S.C. 425; 10. Sharif Ud Din vs. Abdul Gani Lone AIR 1980 SC 3…

The Commissioner of Income Tx-IV vs. Indraprastha Gas Ltd

ITA/67/2016HC Delhi27 Jan 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…Page 43 of 52 45. Such a construction of Clause II (2) of the License Deed dated December 18, 1976 is supported by the opinion of the Supreme Court reported as (2015) 12 SCC 1, Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. UOI, wherein the Supreme Court interpreted the renewal clauses in telecom licences, namely the Cellular Mobile Telephone Service (CMTS) License and the Unified Access Service (UAS) License, granted by the Government of India to different telecom companies. The renewal clauses in the telecom licences read as under :- C…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi vs. Ms. Suman Dhamija

ITA/20/2003HC Delhi08 Dec 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…passed a judgement on 5th October, 2001 dismissing RFA Nos.85 and 868/1987. The appeal filed against the said judgement by the Union of India was allowed by the Supreme Court by judgement dated 7th September, 2005 in Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (2005) 12 SCC 1. The Supreme Court set aside the judgement of the High Court and remitted the appeals to this Court for a fresh decision. 22. As a result the appeals arising both from the proceedings under Section 31 of the LA Act and the proceedings for enhancement of the compensation under Section 18 of the LA Act are pending before this Court. ITA…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi vs. Ms Suman Dhamija

ITA/21/2003HC Delhi08 Dec 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…passed a judgement on 5th October, 2001 dismissing RFA Nos.85 and 868/1987. The appeal filed against the said judgement by the Union of India was allowed by the Supreme Court by judgement dated 7th September, 2005 in Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (2005) 12 SCC 1. The Supreme Court set aside the judgement of the High Court and remitted the appeals to this Court for a fresh decision. 22. As a result the appeals arising both from the proceedings under Section 31 of the LA Act and the proceedings for enhancement of the compensation under Section 18 of the LA Act are pending before this Court. ITA…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi vs. Ms Suman Dhamija

ITA - 21 / 2003HC Delhi08 Dec 2015

…passed a judgement on 5th October, 2001 dismissing RFA Nos.85 and 868/1987. The appeal filed against the said judgement by the Union of India was allowed by the Supreme Court by judgement dated 7th September, 2005 in Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (2005) 12 SCC 1. The Supreme Court set aside the judgement of the High Court and remitted the appeals to this Court for a fresh decision. 22. As a result the appeals arising both from the proceedings under Section 31 of the LA Act and the proceedings for enhancement of the compensation under Section 18 of the LA Act are pending before this Court. 2015:DH…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi vs. Ms. Suman Dhamija

ITA - 20 / 2003HC Delhi08 Dec 2015

…passed a judgement on 5th October, 2001 dismissing RFA Nos.85 and 868/1987. The appeal filed against the said judgement by the Union of India was allowed by the Supreme Court by judgement dated 7th September, 2005 in Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (2005) 12 SCC 1. The Supreme Court set aside the judgement of the High Court and remitted the appeals to this Court for a fresh decision. 22. As a result the appeals arising both from the proceedings under Section 31 of the LA Act and the proceedings for enhancement of the compensation under Section 18 of the LA Act are pending before this Court. 2015:DH…

Ritz Theater vs. Income Tax Officer

Accordingly, they are dismissed without any

ITA/978/2010HC Delhi25 Aug 2010

Bench: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 282Section 67(2)

…sue arose directly and substantially in an earlier suit but a finding regarding an incident or collateral question reached for the purpose of arriving at the final decision would not constitute res judicata. 39. In Union of India v. Pramod Gupta, (2005) 12 SCC 1, it has been held thus:- “29[28]. The principle of res judicata would apply only when the lis was inter partes and had attained finality in respect of the issues involved. The said principle will, however, have no application inter alia in a case where the judgment and/or order had been passed by a court having no jurisdiction therefor, an…

Dilip N. Shroff vs. Joint Commnr. of Income Tax, Mumbai &Anr

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-002746-002746 - 2007Supreme Court18 May 2007
For Respondent: Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr

…may be found to be different having regard to the locale thereof. There was no direct sale instance. The sale instances relied upon by the District Valuer were of 1979 and 1982. 58. In Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (Dead) By LRs. and Others [(2005) 12 SCC 1], this Court observed: "24. While determining the amount of compensation payable in respect of the lands acquired by the State, the market value therefor indisputably has to be ascertained. There exist different modes therefor. 25. The best method, as is well known, would be the amount which a willing purchaser would pay to the owner of the la…