Arul Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu

8 SCC 233Reported decision2001#8731 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Judgments citing Arul Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, vs. PRATAP TECHNOCRATS PVT. LTD.,

Accordingly, this application is allowed and the Election Petition 2

ITA/2/2023HC Rajasthan07 Jan 2025

Bench: INDERJEET SINGH,VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

Section 100(1)(b)Section 81

…Ors., 2024 SCC Online SC 509 2) Ajmera Shyam v. Kova Laxmi and ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1723 3) Karam Singh v. Amarjit Singh and Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2240 4) Udhav Singh v. Madhav Rao Scindia, (1977) 1 SCC 511 5) Hari Shanker Jain v. Sonia Gandhi, (2001) 8 SCC 233 6) Sidik Mahomed Shah v. Mt. Saran, 1929 SCC Online PC 79 7) L. Shivramagowda v. T. M Chandrashekhar, (1999) 1 SCC 666 8) Ram Sukh v. Dinesh Agarwal, (2009) 10 SCC 541 9) Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar and Ors., 2023 SCC OnlineSC 573 10) C. P. John v. Babu M. Paliserry, (2014) 10 SCC 547 11) Shambhu Prasad v. Chandradas Mahant, (2012)…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PALI TEXTILE COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT

Accordingly, this application is allowed and the Election Petition 2

ITA/5/2024HC Rajasthan24 Jul 2024

Bench: SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR,KULDEEP MATHUR

Section 100(1)(b)Section 81

…Ors., 2024 SCC Online SC 509 2) Ajmera Shyam v. Kova Laxmi and ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1723 3) Karam Singh v. Amarjit Singh and Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2240 4) Udhav Singh v. Madhav Rao Scindia, (1977) 1 SCC 511 5) Hari Shanker Jain v. Sonia Gandhi, (2001) 8 SCC 233 6) Sidik Mahomed Shah v. Mt. Saran, 1929 SCC Online PC 79 7) L. Shivramagowda v. T. M Chandrashekhar, (1999) 1 SCC 666 8) Ram Sukh v. Dinesh Agarwal, (2009) 10 SCC 541 9) Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar and Ors., 2023 SCC OnlineSC 573 10) C. P. John v. Babu M. Paliserry, (2014) 10 SCC 547 11) Shambhu Prasad v. Chandradas Mahant, (2012)…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. SHRI GULAB SINGH BHANDARI

Accordingly, this application is allowed and the Election Petition 2

ITA/7/2024HC Rajasthan23 Apr 2024

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,MUNNURI LAXMAN

Section 100(1)(b)Section 81

…Ors., 2024 SCC Online SC 509 2) Ajmera Shyam v. Kova Laxmi and ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1723 3) Karam Singh v. Amarjit Singh and Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2240 4) Udhav Singh v. Madhav Rao Scindia, (1977) 1 SCC 511 5) Hari Shanker Jain v. Sonia Gandhi, (2001) 8 SCC 233 6) Sidik Mahomed Shah v. Mt. Saran, 1929 SCC Online PC 79 7) L. Shivramagowda v. T. M Chandrashekhar, (1999) 1 SCC 666 8) Ram Sukh v. Dinesh Agarwal, (2009) 10 SCC 541 9) Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar and Ors., 2023 SCC OnlineSC 573 10) C. P. John v. Babu M. Paliserry, (2014) 10 SCC 547 11) Shambhu Prasad v. Chandradas Mahant, (2012)…

PRINCIPAL COMMNR OF INCOME TAX-1, KHURDHA. vs. MAMATA MOHAPATRA

Accordingly, this application is allowed and the Election Petition 2

ITA/5/2024HC Orissa12 Apr 2024

Bench: DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI,MR. JUSTICE GOURISHANKAR SATAPATHY

Section 100(1)(b)Section 81

…Ors., 2024 SCC Online SC 509 2) Ajmera Shyam v. Kova Laxmi and ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1723 3) Karam Singh v. Amarjit Singh and Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2240 4) Udhav Singh v. Madhav Rao Scindia, (1977) 1 SCC 511 5) Hari Shanker Jain v. Sonia Gandhi, (2001) 8 SCC 233 6) Sidik Mahomed Shah v. Mt. Saran, 1929 SCC Online PC 79 7) L. Shivramagowda v. T. M Chandrashekhar, (1999) 1 SCC 666 8) Ram Sukh v. Dinesh Agarwal, (2009) 10 SCC 541 9) Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar and Ors., 2023 SCC OnlineSC 573 10) C. P. John v. Babu M. Paliserry, (2014) 10 SCC 547 11) Shambhu Prasad v. Chandradas Mahant, (2012)…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-I, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ACI WIRELESS LTD

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/313/2013HC Delhi10 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…canvassed by A-50 and, therefore, merely on evidence of co-accused, in absence of any other incriminating evidence the conviction under conspiracy cannot be maintainable. Reliance is placed on a case reported as S. Arul Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2010 8 SCC 233 wherein the Supreme Court has observed: ―56. Furthermore, we find that the statement made by A1 is insufficient to implicate the appellant in the said conspiracy as the same is hit by Section 10 of the Evidence Act. Section 10 refers to the statement of a fellow conspirator that pertains to the common intention behind the act, and such a stat…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX: DELHI-V vs. RITES LTD.

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/295/2013HC Delhi06 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…canvassed by A-50 and, therefore, merely on evidence of co-accused, in absence of any other incriminating evidence the conviction under conspiracy cannot be maintainable. Reliance is placed on a case reported as S. Arul Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2010 8 SCC 233 wherein the Supreme Court has observed: ―56. Furthermore, we find that the statement made by A1 is insufficient to implicate the appellant in the said conspiracy as the same is hit by Section 10 of the Evidence Act. Section 10 refers to the statement of a fellow conspirator that pertains to the common intention behind the act, and such a stat…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX : DELHI -V vs. RITED LTD.

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/293/2013HC Delhi06 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…canvassed by A-50 and, therefore, merely on evidence of co-accused, in absence of any other incriminating evidence the conviction under conspiracy cannot be maintainable. Reliance is placed on a case reported as S. Arul Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2010 8 SCC 233 wherein the Supreme Court has observed: ―56. Furthermore, we find that the statement made by A1 is insufficient to implicate the appellant in the said conspiracy as the same is hit by Section 10 of the Evidence Act. Section 10 refers to the statement of a fellow conspirator that pertains to the common intention behind the act, and such a stat…

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. R.L. KHERA CHARITABLE TRUST

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/268/2013HC Delhi27 Nov 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…canvassed by A-50 and, therefore, merely on evidence of co-accused, in absence of any other incriminating evidence the conviction under conspiracy cannot be maintainable. Reliance is placed on a case reported as S. Arul Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2010 8 SCC 233 wherein the Supreme Court has observed: ―56. Furthermore, we find that the statement made by A1 is insufficient to implicate the appellant in the said conspiracy as the same is hit by Section 10 of the Evidence Act. Section 10 refers to the statement of a fellow conspirator that pertains to the common intention behind the act, and such a stat…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NEW DELHI vs. MIRA EXIM LTD

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/346/2013HC Delhi03 Oct 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…canvassed by A-50 and, therefore, merely on evidence of co-accused, in absence of any other incriminating evidence the conviction under conspiracy cannot be maintainable. Reliance is placed on a case reported as S. Arul Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2010 8 SCC 233 wherein the Supreme Court has observed: ―56. Furthermore, we find that the statement made by A1 is insufficient to implicate the appellant in the said conspiracy as the same is hit by Section 10 of the Evidence Act. Section 10 refers to the statement of a fellow conspirator that pertains to the common intention behind the act, and such a stat…

CIT VI vs. VERIZON INDIA PVT LTD

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/277/2013HC Delhi29 May 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…canvassed by A-50 and, therefore, merely on evidence of co-accused, in absence of any other incriminating evidence the conviction under conspiracy cannot be maintainable. Reliance is placed on a case reported as S. Arul Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2010 8 SCC 233 wherein the Supreme Court has observed: ―56. Furthermore, we find that the statement made by A1 is insufficient to implicate the appellant in the said conspiracy as the same is hit by Section 10 of the Evidence Act. Section 10 refers to the statement of a fellow conspirator that pertains to the common intention behind the act, and such a stat…

NEW DELHI HOTELS LTD vs. ACIT

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/238/2013HC Delhi17 May 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…canvassed by A-50 and, therefore, merely on evidence of co-accused, in absence of any other incriminating evidence the conviction under conspiracy cannot be maintainable. Reliance is placed on a case reported as S. Arul Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2010 8 SCC 233 wherein the Supreme Court has observed: ―56. Furthermore, we find that the statement made by A1 is insufficient to implicate the appellant in the said conspiracy as the same is hit by Section 10 of the Evidence Act. Section 10 refers to the statement of a fellow conspirator that pertains to the common intention behind the act, and such a stat…

CIT vs. MANJU BANSAL

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/205/2013HC Delhi30 Apr 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…canvassed by A-50 and, therefore, merely on evidence of co-accused, in absence of any other incriminating evidence the conviction under conspiracy cannot be maintainable. Reliance is placed on a case reported as S. Arul Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2010 8 SCC 233 wherein the Supreme Court has observed: ―56. Furthermore, we find that the statement made by A1 is insufficient to implicate the appellant in the said conspiracy as the same is hit by Section 10 of the Evidence Act. Section 10 refers to the statement of a fellow conspirator that pertains to the common intention behind the act, and such a stat…

CIT vs. NIRMAL BANSAL

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/198/2013HC Delhi30 Apr 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…canvassed by A-50 and, therefore, merely on evidence of co-accused, in absence of any other incriminating evidence the conviction under conspiracy cannot be maintainable. Reliance is placed on a case reported as S. Arul Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2010 8 SCC 233 wherein the Supreme Court has observed: ―56. Furthermore, we find that the statement made by A1 is insufficient to implicate the appellant in the said conspiracy as the same is hit by Section 10 of the Evidence Act. Section 10 refers to the statement of a fellow conspirator that pertains to the common intention behind the act, and such a stat…