Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Article 12 of the Constitution. 2.14.2 Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 14A, Section 36(1)(vii), Section 244A, Section 36(1)(viia), Section 36(1)(viii), Section 40(a)(ia).

Article 12 of the Constitution. 2.14.2 Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram

Q: How many judgments cite Article 12 of the Constitution. 2.14.2 Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram?

29 judgments on BharatTax cite Article 12 of the Constitution. 2.14.2 Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram (1 SCC 421), spanning 2015 to 2026.

1 SCC 421Reported decision1975#3980 most cited

What is Article 12 of the Constitution. 2.14.2 Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram authority for?

The concept of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution has expanded beyond a mere cohesive machinery of authority to include service corporations acting as instrumentalities or agencies of the State, even when engaged in commercial activities.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram · Article 12 · State · other authority · instrumentality of State · agency of State · welfare state · commercial activities · service corporation

Sections most often in play

Section 14A Section 36(1)(vii)Section 244A Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 40A(9)Section 41(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 4(3)section 205 section 36(1)(v)section 10(23c)(iv)advancement of general public utility section 52 proviso to section 2(15)mli put to use section 10(23c)section 2(15)section 40a(3)

Judgments citing Article 12 of the Constitution. 2.14.2 Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2086/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…s. (d) Since the State is empowered under the Articles 19(1)(g) and 298 to carry on any trade or business, it was held that Rajasthan State Electricity Board was ‘other authority’ under Article 12 of the Constitution. 2.14.2 Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram [1975] 1 SCC 421: (a) The concept of State had undergone drastic change. It cannot be conceived of simply as cohesive machinery wielding the thunderbolt of authority. (b) The State is a service corporation. It acts only through instrumentalities or agencies of natural and juridical person. (c) There is distinction between State action and private action. (d) There…

M/S. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions) Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 1962/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

V Hanumantharayappa vs. State of Karnataka

WP/44577/2017HC Karnataka06 Mar 2020

Bench: S.N.SATYANARAYANA,SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

Section 12(3)Section 14Section 19

…rs Citation 1. Canara Bank & Others v. Swapan Kumar Pani & Another (2006) 3 SCC 251 2. Babu Verghese & Others v. Bar Council of Kerala & Others (1999) 3 SCC 422 3. Sukhdev Singh & Others v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi & Another (1975) 1 SCC 421 4. Mohinder Singh Gill & Another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Others (1978) 4 SCC 405 5. Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India & Others (1987) 4 SCC 611 6. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K.Ratna & Others (1986) 4 SCC 537 7. Chief of Army Staff & Others v. Major Dharam Pal Kukrety (1985) 2 SCC 412 8. The…

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Koundinya Educational Society

ITTA/179/2019HC Andhra Pradesh29 Oct 2019

Bench: C.PRAVEEN KUMAR,CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

…Law (7th edn., EBC 2013). 77. 359 US 535 (1959); the principle espoused in this judgment has been followed by the Apex Court in Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia (Dr) vs State of Punjab, (1975) 3 SCC 503, Sukhdev Singh vs Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi, (1975) 1 SCC 421 (concurring opinion of Justice K K Mathew) and Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489. 78. (2012) 11 SCC 1 79. (1990) 64 Aust LJR 327: (1990) 170 CLR 1. 80. (1862) 4 De GF&J 517 81. (1880) 15 Ch D 96 82. (1965) 2 QB 29 83. [1988] HCA 7, (1988) 164 CLR 387 High Court (Australia) 84. 93 (2000) DLT…

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Kanpur vs. Canara Bank

The appeals are dismissed

C.A. No.-006020-006020 - 2018Supreme Court02 Jul 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

Section 194ASection 3

…1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6020 OF 2018 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 3168 OF 2017) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS) ... APPELLANTS KANPUR AND ANR. VERSUS CANARA BANK ... RESPONDENT WITH C.A.NO.6064 of 2018 @ SLP(C)No.9295/2017, C.A.NO.6056 of 2018 2018 @ SLP (C)No.3162/2017, C.A.NO.6058 of 2018 @ SLP(C)No.9292/2017, C.A.NO.6055 of 2018 @ SLP(C)No.3163/2017, C.A.NO.6060 of 2018 @ SLP(C)No.9294/2017, C.A.NO.6057of 2018 @ SLP(C) No. 9288/2017, C.A.NO.6054 2018 @ SLP(C) No. 3169/2017, C.A.NO.6066 of 2018 @ SLP(C)No.9290/2017, C.A.NO…

M/S Dena Bank, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT (TDS), Ghaziabad

In the result appeals filed by the appellant are allowed

ITA 6851/DEL/2015[2008-09 (F.Y. 2007-08)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2017

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh SK Jain, DR

Section 10Section 154Section 201(1)

…legislature. 10. There is a distinction between a corporation established by or under an Act and a body incorporated under an Act. The distinction was brought out by this Court in Sukhdev Singh and Ors. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and Ors., (1975) 1 SCC 421. It was observed: "25. A company incorporated under the Companies Act is not created by the Companies Act but comes into existence in accordance with the provisions of the Act." There is thus a well-marked distinction between a body created by a statute and a body which, after coming into existence, is governed in accordance with the provisions of…

M/S State Bank of Patiala, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT (TDS), Ghaziabad

In the result appeals filed by the appellant are allowed

ITA 6850/DEL/2015[2008-09 (F.Y. 2007-08)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2017

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh SK Jain, DR

Section 10Section 154Section 201(1)

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Gardenia Shelters (P) Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross

ITA 612/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasanthan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri C S Agarwal, Sr. Adv

Section 194Section 194ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 194J

…he issue was definition of “usage of term a corporation established by or under an Act.” Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suikhdev Singh and others Vs Bhagat Ram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi (1975) 01 SCC 421 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “A company incorporated under the Companies Act is not created by the Companies Acts but comes into existence in accordance with the provisions of the Act. There is thus a well-marked distinction between a body created by a statute and a body which, after coming into existence, is governed in ac…

ACIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Menzies Aviation Bobba (Bangalore) Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1160/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: : Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boazassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Circle 12(1) Vs. M/S.Menzies Aviation Bobba Bangalore. (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore. Pan: Aaecm6862D (Appellant) (Respondent) M.P.No.19/Bang/2014 Arising Out Of Ita No.1160/Bang/2012 - Assessment Year 2009-10 M/S.Menzies Aviation Acit, Circle 12(1) Bobba (Bangalore) Pvt. Vs. Bangalore. Ltd. Bangalore. Pan: Aaecm6862D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Mr. Farahat Hussain Qureshi For Assessee : Mr. V. Srinivasan Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2015 Order Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This Appeal By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-Iii, Bangalore, Dated 11.06.2012 For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2

For Appellant: Mr. V. SrinivasanFor Respondent: Mr. Farahat Hussain Qureshi

Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE 'B' BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE : SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P.BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year: 2009-10 ACIT, Circle 12(1) vs. M/s.Menzies Aviation Bobba Bangalore. (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore. PAN: AAECM6862D (Appellant) (Respondent) M.P.No.19/Bang/2014 Arising out of ITA No.1160/Bang/2012 - Assessment year 2009-10 M/s.Menzies Aviation ACIT, Circle 12(1) Bobba (Bangalore) Pvt. vs. Bangalore. Ltd. Bangalore. PAN: AAECM6862D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Mr. Farahat Hussain Qureshi For Assessee : Mr. V. Srinivasan Date of He…