4. CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni

3 SCC 141Reported decision1992#13171 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

Judgments citing 4. CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni

SMT. RAJNI GUTPA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

ITA 44/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 44/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 cuke Smt. Rajni Gupta ACIT, Vs. 09, Keshav Nagar, Central Circle, Alwar Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFJPG 9455 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT lq…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S TRIBUTE TRADING AND FINANCE LTD

ITAT/212/2022HC Calcutta06 Feb 2023

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 156(3)

…dealt with this aspect by considering the Constitutional Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of: • Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. reported at (2014) 2 SCC 1 and in 6 • Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India reported at (2007) 6 SCC 171 • Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. reported at (2008) 2 SCC 409. 7. It is also held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan Versus Union of India and Others reported in (2014) 11 Supreme Court Cases 477 observing that statutory provisions and particularly panel law provide sufficient remedy to curb the menace of "ha…

MR. BINEESH KODIYERI vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

WP/13261/2020HC Karnataka16 Mar 2021

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Suraj Govindaraj Writ Petition No. 13261 Of 2020 (Gm-Res) Between: Mr. Bineesh Kodiyeri S/O Mr. Kodiyeri Balakrishnan Aged About 37 Years Kootamvilla Lane, Maruthankuzhi Thiruvananthapuram District Kerala State – 695013

Section 19Section 482

…re of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. The same rule was reiterated in G. Jayashree v. Bhagwandas S. Patel [(2009) 3 SCC 141] . WP No. 13261 of 2020 113 5.33. He submits that there is an arrest made of the petitioner under the NDPS Act would indicate that the NCB is of the opinion that the petitioner is involved in such offences. NCB is yet to file a charge sheet which can be filed in the time frame specified under Section 36-A of the NDPS Act. Just because…

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK

Appeals are allowed in part

ITA/376/2015HC Karnataka22 Jan 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 201Section 302Section 374(2)

…994 Kar. 491 – (paragraph-6) 2. M. Abbas v. The State of Karnataka - 1996 Crl.LJ 317 - (paragraph-7) 3. Pulukuri Kottayya v. King Emperor – AIR (34) 1947 PC 67 (paragraph-10 .. relating to confession statement) 4. CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni - (1992)3 SCC 141 (paragraph-8) 5. Vijender v. State of Delhi - (1997)6 SCC 171 (paragraphj-17) 17 6. Mohd. Aman and another v. State of Rajasthan - (1997)10 SCC 14 (paragraph-9) 7. Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) - AIR 2017 SC 614 (Paragraph-10) 8. Nagappa Dondiba v. State of Karnataka - AIR 1980 SC 1753 (paragraph-3) III. ARGUMENTS ADV…

INDAGE WINES,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 18(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3420/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Indage Wines, 82, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Indage House, Dr. A.B. Tax-18(1) Vs. Road, Worli, Mumbai- Mumbai. 400018. Pan No. Aaafi2332M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Anjala Parveen, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Anoop Hiwase, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/06/2018

For Appellant: Ms. Anjala Parveen, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Anoop Hiwase, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ere filed before the AO as well as CIT(A). Also he files a copy of decision in Pradeep Batra v. Inspecting Assistance Commissioner, (1991) 39 ITD 406 (Delhi), Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT, AIR 1959 SC 1238, Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. CIT, (1993) 3 SCC 141, Esturi Aswathiah v. CIT, AIR 1968 SC 36, Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT, AIR 1959 SC 1295, CIT v. IDI Marketing (P) Ltd., MANU/DE/2762/2009, Paranjay Mercantile Ltd. v. ACIT, MANU/IB/0111/2009, Aggarwal Engineering Co. v. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 332. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). It is stated by him…

SRI. G. SHANKAR vs. KRISHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAM LIMITED

WP/2243/2016HC Karnataka08 Sept 2016

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

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.2243/2016 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: SRI. G. SHANKAR S/O LATE SRI SOMA BANGERA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS CATEGORY I CONTRACTOR R/A GANESH NAGAR STATION ROAD BIJAPURA-586104 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL SRI. VIVEK HOLLA & SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR S, ADVs. FOR M/S. HOLLA & HOLLA) AND: 1. KRISHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAM LIMITED GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING 3RD FLOOR, PWD OFFICE ANNEXE K R CIRCLE, BANGAL…

M/S UNITED TELECOM LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Appeals are allowed in part

ITA/270/2015HC Karnataka16 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 201Section 302Section 374(2)

…aka - 1996 Crl.LJ 317 - (paragraph-7) 3. Pulukuri Kottayya v. King Emperor – AIR (34) 1947 PC 67 (paragraph-10 .. relating to confession statement) 4. CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni - (1992)3 SCC 141 (paragraph-8) 5. Vijender v. State of Delhi - (1997)6 SCC 171 (paragraphj-17) 17 6. Mohd. Aman and another v. State of Rajasthan - (1997)10 SCC 14 (paragraph-9) 7. Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) - AIR 2017 SC 614 (Paragraph-10) 8. Nagappa Dondiba v. State of Karnataka - AIR 1980 SC 1753 (paragraph-3) III. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED Nos.3 AND 4 13. S…

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Prefab Gratings Limited,

ITTA/321/2013HC Telangana07 Aug 2013

Bench: Honourable Mr. Justice Manish Choudhury Judgment & Order (Cav) Date : 24-05-2019

For Respondent: MRMIJANUR RAHMAN
Section 166Section 173

…actual annual income of the deceased would be Rs. 1,95,004/- (Rs. 18,125/- X 12 - Rs. 22,496/-). In view of the principle as regards future prospects laid down in the decision of Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 171, addition of 30% of the actual salary was made by the Claims Tribunal in view of the fact that the deceased was below 50 years of age and was in a permanent job. With the addition of future prospects to the extent of 30%, the Claims Tribunal assessed the annual income of the deceased at Rs. 2,53,505/- [Rs. 1,95,004/- + Rs. 58,501/- (30% of Rs. 1,95…

4. CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni (3 SCC 141) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax