Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal

4 SCC 467Reported decision1977#15795 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2024.

Judgments citing Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal

ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Vamsi Mohan Vallabhaneni, Vijayawada

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 324/HYD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sri Vamsi Mohan Vallabhaneni, Tax, R/O.Vijayawada. Central Circle – 3(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Adrpv4231C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. M. Narmadha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2024 10.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmadha, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…ber of the Bar or anyone connected in the process of dispensation of justice, should not be allowed to dilute the judicial processes by delaying the said process by in any manner whatsoever. As held by this Court in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal AIR (1977) 4 SCC 467 the answer to an irresponsible suit or litigation would be a vigilant judge. This analogy requires to be stretched in the instant case and to all the pending matters by necessarily holding that every stakeholder in the process of 7 dispensation of justice is required to act swiftly, diligently, without giving scope for any delay in dispensation of…

Kuldeep Makhija, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 10(3), Pune

The appeal is DISMISSED with aforestated cost

ITA 946/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Kuldeep Makhija C/O Ghanshyam Shivnani, P/4-903, Oxford Village Premiums, Kedari Nagar, Pune-411040 Pan: Alnpm7224Q. . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Smt Deepa Khare [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umesh Phade [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 253(1)

…a cause of action, the Court must nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly. An activist judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits said V. R. Krishna Iyer, J. (as he then was) in T. Arivandandam V/s. T. V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467. 12.4. In Dalip Singh V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 2 SCC 114, the Court bemoaned that a new creed of litigants has cropped up who do not have any respect for truth and they shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving ITAT-Pune Page 14 of 18 Kuldeep Makhija Vs ITO ITA No. 0946/PUN/2024 AY: 2012-13 their goals. Such a…

M/s Sri Surya Constructions vs. The Income Tax Officer

ITTA/11/2023HC Telangana27 Jul 2023

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 vs. Oscar Investment Ltd

Appeal is allowed and the suit instituted by the

ITA/86/2019HC Delhi04 Sept 2019

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 151

…tement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Rejection of the plaint in exercise of the powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code would be on consideration of the principles laid down by this Court. In T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal and Another, (1977) 4 SCC 467, this Court has held that if on a meaningful, not formal, reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the Court should exercise its power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. In Roop Lal Sethi vs. Nachhatta…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. Indraprastha Power Generation Co. Ltd

ITA/189/2017HC Delhi24 Mar 2017

Bench: This Court On 29Th August, 2017 When Notice Thereof Was Ordered To Be Issued. The Counsels Were Heard On 12Th October, 2017 & Orders Reserved. 3. The Petitioner/Plaintiff Instituted The Suit, From Which This Petition Arises, For Recovery Of Possession & Mesne Profits With Respect To Property No.B-237/B, Greater Kailash – I, New Delhi From The Two Respondents / Defendants Being The Daughter-In-Law & The Granddaughter Of The Petitioner/Plaintiff, Pleading (I) That The Petitioner / Plaintiff Is The Owner In Possession Of Property No.B-237/B, Greater Kailash – I, New Delhi; (Ii) That The Respondents / Defendants Are In Possession Of Rooms On First Floor Of The

Section 115

…did not consider the matter in the correct perspective and is found to have dealt with the application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC for judgment on admissions in a mechanical manner. In fact, Supreme Court in T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal (1997) 4 SCC 467, Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi (1986) 1 SCC 573, I.T.C. Ltd. Vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (1998) 2 SCC 70, Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Machado Brothers (2004) 11 SCC 168 and Liverpool and London S.P. and I Association Ltd. Vs. M.V. Sea Success I (2004) 9 SCC 512 has gone to the extent of holding that the Courts are require…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi IV vs. D.S.Promoters & Developers P. Ltd

The Appeal is dismissed but with no orders as to costs

ITA/654/2008HC Delhi01 May 2009

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

Section 22Section 260ASection 28

…ned that the High Court on a Reference was not justified in interfering with findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal which had been rendered only after duly considering the entire evidence. In CIT, Gujarat –vs- Cellulose Products of India Ltd., (1991) 4 SCC 467 a Three-Judge Bench observed that once “the tribunal after considering the evidence produced before it on a question of fact records its finding, it cannot be interfered with in a reference by the High Court unless such finding was not supported by the evidence, was perverse or patently unreasonable”. 5. The leading case pertaining…