ASLAM MOHAMMAD MERCHANT v. COMPETENT AUTHORITY & OTHERS

3 SCC 757Reported decision1976#4495 most cited

What is ASLAM MOHAMMAD MERCHANT v. COMPETENT AUTHORITY & OTHERS authority for?

The court determines whether a writ petition is maintainable when alternative remedies are available. It also cites other cases without providing specific details on the holding from this case.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Aslam Mohammad Merchant · Competent Authority · writ petition · alternative remedy · PMLA · Section 17(1) · PML Act

Sections most often in play

Section 1922)Section 115JBSection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 148bsanction under section 151approval under section 151paper companysection 151(1)order under section 148a(d)short term capital gainsspecified authorityincome escaping assessmentnon-application of mindprincipal commissioner of income-taxsection 148a(b)

Judgments citing ASLAM MOHAMMAD MERCHANT v. COMPETENT AUTHORITY & OTHERS

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Rosha Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Mandi Gobindgarh

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,

ITA 923/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2020-21
Section 148BSection 151

…d in Explanation 1 to section 148 that suggests escapement of income and only thereafter, the provisions of Section 148 can be invoked. Further, such an exercise should be reasonable and not fanciful or roving as pointed out in ITO vs LAKHMANIMEWAL DAS (1976) 3 SCC 757, (103 ITR 457). Though this decision was rendered long before the amendment to the subject section was effected, its inner voice animates the Division Bench decision of Delhi High Court in DIVYA CAPITAL ONE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ACIT [2022] 445 ITR 436 (Del), (Refer page no. 158 to 165 of case law index book) that has been rendered post- amendment. (…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Rosha Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Mandi Gobindgarh

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,

ITA 922/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2019-20
Section 148BSection 151

…d in Explanation 1 to section 148 that suggests escapement of income and only thereafter, the provisions of Section 148 can be invoked. Further, such an exercise should be reasonable and not fanciful or roving as pointed out in ITO vs LAKHMANIMEWAL DAS (1976) 3 SCC 757, (103 ITR 457). Though this decision was rendered long before the amendment to the subject section was effected, its inner voice animates the Division Bench decision of Delhi High Court in DIVYA CAPITAL ONE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ACIT [2022] 445 ITR 436 (Del), (Refer page no. 158 to 165 of case law index book) that has been rendered post- amendment. (…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Rosha Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Mandi Gobindgarh

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,

ITA 921/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2018-19
Section 148BSection 151

…d in Explanation 1 to section 148 that suggests escapement of income and only thereafter, the provisions of Section 148 can be invoked. Further, such an exercise should be reasonable and not fanciful or roving as pointed out in ITO vs LAKHMANIMEWAL DAS (1976) 3 SCC 757, (103 ITR 457). Though this decision was rendered long before the amendment to the subject section was effected, its inner voice animates the Division Bench decision of Delhi High Court in DIVYA CAPITAL ONE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ACIT [2022] 445 ITR 436 (Del), (Refer page no. 158 to 165 of case law index book) that has been rendered post- amendment. (…

Rosha Alloys P Limited, Amloh Road, Village Turan, Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Ludhiana, Punjab

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,

ITA 888/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2018-2019
Section 148BSection 151

…d in Explanation 1 to section 148 that suggests escapement of income and only thereafter, the provisions of Section 148 can be invoked. Further, such an exercise should be reasonable and not fanciful or roving as pointed out in ITO vs LAKHMANIMEWAL DAS (1976) 3 SCC 757, (103 ITR 457). Though this decision was rendered long before the amendment to the subject section was effected, its inner voice animates the Division Bench decision of Delhi High Court in DIVYA CAPITAL ONE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ACIT [2022] 445 ITR 436 (Del), (Refer page no. 158 to 165 of case law index book) that has been rendered post- amendment. (…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/S East Delhi Leasing Pvt. Ltd

The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent

ITA/61/2025HC Delhi10 Mar 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA,HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA

Section 147Section 148

…al provisions/statutes. It is also trite that in taxing statutes, in particular, section 148 of the Act, the “reason to believe”, must be based on objective materials, and on a reasonable view. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das, (1976) 3 SCC 757 has upheld the aforesaid principle. Relevant paragraph of Lakhmani Mewal (supra) is extracted hereunder: “8. The grounds or reasons which lead to the formation of the belief contemplated by Section 147(a) of the Act must have a material bearing on the question of escapement of income of the assessee from assessment because of his failure or o…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/S East Delhi Leasing Pvt. Ltd

The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent

ITA - 61 / 2025HC Delhi10 Mar 2025
Section 147Section 148

…al provisions/statutes. It is also trite that in taxing statutes, in particular, section 148 of the Act, the “reason to believe”, must be based on objective materials, and on a reasonable view. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das, (1976) 3 SCC 757 has upheld the aforesaid principle. Relevant paragraph of Lakhmani Mewal (supra) is extracted hereunder: “8. The grounds or reasons which lead to the formation of the belief contemplated by Section 147(a) of the Act must have a material bearing on the question of escapement of income of the assessee from assessment because of his failure or o…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, DCIT Circle, Aaykar Bhavan vs. Svc Co-Operative Bank Limited

ITA 691/MUM/2024[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajgopal & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Ld. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…at while the duty of the assessee is to disclose fully and truly all primary facts, it does not extend beyond this. This position has been reiterated in subsequent decisions by this court including in ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [(1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC); (1976) 3 SCC 757.] . The expression “reason to believe” has also been explained to mean reasons deducible from the materials on record and which have a live link to the formation of the belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Such reasons must be based on material and specific information obtained subsequently and not on the basis of surmises,…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-II, Kolkata vs. M/S. Kesoram Idustries Limited

ITA/1/2014HC Calcutta06 May 2024

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 6Th May 2024. Appearance: Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Advocate Mr. Ankan Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Ms. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Advocate. … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee, Learned Junior Standing Counsel For The Appellant & Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sm. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Learned Counsel For The Respondent Assessee. 2. This Appeal Was Admitted By This Court By Order Dated 31St July 2013 On The Following Substantial Question Of Law:- “Whether On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Erred In Law In Setting Aside The Order Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax, 1961?”

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(iii)

…ial before him from which he could have drawn the inference that income has escaped assessment. His vague feeling that 12 there might have been some escape of income from assessment is not sufficient.……” 16. In the case of ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das, (1976) 3 SCC 757 (para-11 and 12), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "11. As stated earlier, the reasons for the formation of the belief must have a rational connection with or relevant bearing on the formation of the belief. Rational connection postulates that there must be a direct nexus or live link between the material coming to the notice of the Income…

K R Packaging (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-5(1), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 71/DEL/2021[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 71/DEL/2021 [A.Y. 2003-04] K.R. Packaging (P) Ltd Vs. The A.C.I.T D – 1, Pandav Nagar, Circle – 5(1) Near Mother Diary, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AACCK 2506 J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv Department By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 03.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 07.07.2023 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the or…

Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) vs. Laljibhai Kanjibhai Mandalia

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High

C.A. No.-004081-004081 - 2022Supreme Court13 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)

…this Court was examining the scope of the expression “reason to believe” in the context of reopening of assessment on the ground that income had escaped assessment. It was held that the powers of the Income Tax Officer to reopen 16 (1976) 3 SCC 757 14 assessment, though wide, but are not plenary. The words of the statute are “reason to believe” and not “reason to suspect”. It was held that no doubt the Court cannot go into the sufficiency or adequacy of the material and substitute its own opinion for that of the Income Tax Officer on the point as to whether action should be initia…

Lakhmi Chand Tejoo Mal, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-47(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 8094/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2011-12]

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri E.V. Bhaskar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…t should be inextricably connected. In other words, the reasons for the formation of opinion should have a rational connection with the formation of the belief that there has been an escapement of income chargeable to tax (See: ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das, 1976 3 SCC 757] (ii) The expression "reason to believe" is stronger than the word "satisfied". The belief should be based on material that is relevant and cogent. (See: Ganga Saran & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO, 1981 3 SCC 143]. (ii) (a) The assessing officer should have reasons to believe that the taxable income has escaped assessment. The process of reassessment ca…

Mr Dyani Antony Paul vs. Union of India

WP/38642/2016HC 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. ®

…der Section 17(1) of the PML Act. Hence, he has prayed for allowing the writ petitions. He has relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions: i) (2008)14 SCC 186 – ASLAM MOHAMMAD MERCHANT vs COMPETENT AUTHORITY & OTHERS. ii) (1976)3 SCC 757 – INCOME TAX OFFICER vs LAKHMANI MEWAL DAS. iii) (2008)2 SCC 302 – RAMAN TECH & PROCESS ENGG CO., & ANOTHER vs SOLANKI TRADERS. iv) (1998)8 SCC 1 – WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, MUMBAI & OTHERS. 73 v) W.P.(C) 5537/2018 & CM Nos.21583/2018 & 33487/2018, DECIDED ON 23.08.2018 – M/S.HIMACHAL EMTA POWER LIMITED vs UNION…

Desaraju Venugopal vs. The Assistant Director

WP/8261/2017HC 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. ®

…der Section 17(1) of the PML Act. Hence, he has prayed for allowing the writ petitions. He has relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions: i) (2008)14 SCC 186 – ASLAM MOHAMMAD MERCHANT vs COMPETENT AUTHORITY & OTHERS. ii) (1976)3 SCC 757 – INCOME TAX OFFICER vs LAKHMANI MEWAL DAS. iii) (2008)2 SCC 302 – RAMAN TECH & PROCESS ENGG CO., & ANOTHER vs SOLANKI TRADERS. iv) (1998)8 SCC 1 – WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, MUMBAI & OTHERS. 73 v) W.P.(C) 5537/2018 & CM Nos.21583/2018 & 33487/2018, DECIDED ON 23.08.2018 – M/S.HIMACHAL EMTA POWER LIMITED vs UNION…

Sri S Thimmaraju vs. The Assistant Director

WP/42157/2016HC 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. ®

…der Section 17(1) of the PML Act. Hence, he has prayed for allowing the writ petitions. He has relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions: i) (2008)14 SCC 186 – ASLAM MOHAMMAD MERCHANT vs COMPETENT AUTHORITY & OTHERS. ii) (1976)3 SCC 757 – INCOME TAX OFFICER vs LAKHMANI MEWAL DAS. iii) (2008)2 SCC 302 – RAMAN TECH & PROCESS ENGG CO., & ANOTHER vs SOLANKI TRADERS. iv) (1998)8 SCC 1 – WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, MUMBAI & OTHERS. 73 v) W.P.(C) 5537/2018 & CM Nos.21583/2018 & 33487/2018, DECIDED ON 23.08.2018 – M/S.HIMACHAL EMTA POWER LIMITED vs UNION…

M/S. Jsw Steel Limited vs. Deputy Director

WP/19313/2016HC 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. ®

…der Section 17(1) of the PML Act. Hence, he has prayed for allowing the writ petitions. He has relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions: i) (2008)14 SCC 186 – ASLAM MOHAMMAD MERCHANT vs COMPETENT AUTHORITY & OTHERS. ii) (1976)3 SCC 757 – INCOME TAX OFFICER vs LAKHMANI MEWAL DAS. iii) (2008)2 SCC 302 – RAMAN TECH & PROCESS ENGG CO., & ANOTHER vs SOLANKI TRADERS. iv) (1998)8 SCC 1 – WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, MUMBAI & OTHERS. 73 v) W.P.(C) 5537/2018 & CM Nos.21583/2018 & 33487/2018, DECIDED ON 23.08.2018 – M/S.HIMACHAL EMTA POWER LIMITED vs UNION…

Shri C Devaraju vs. The Deputy Director

WP/48031/2017HC 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. ®

…der Section 17(1) of the PML Act. Hence, he has prayed for allowing the writ petitions. He has relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions: i) (2008)14 SCC 186 – ASLAM MOHAMMAD MERCHANT vs COMPETENT AUTHORITY & OTHERS. ii) (1976)3 SCC 757 – INCOME TAX OFFICER vs LAKHMANI MEWAL DAS. iii) (2008)2 SCC 302 – RAMAN TECH & PROCESS ENGG CO., & ANOTHER vs SOLANKI TRADERS. iv) (1998)8 SCC 1 – WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, MUMBAI & OTHERS. 73 v) W.P.(C) 5537/2018 & CM Nos.21583/2018 & 33487/2018, DECIDED ON 23.08.2018 – M/S.HIMACHAL EMTA POWER LIMITED vs UNION…

Meerama Overseas Pvt Ltd vs. The Deputy Director

WP/62102/2016HC 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. ®

…der Section 17(1) of the PML Act. Hence, he has prayed for allowing the writ petitions. He has relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions: i) (2008)14 SCC 186 – ASLAM MOHAMMAD MERCHANT vs COMPETENT AUTHORITY & OTHERS. ii) (1976)3 SCC 757 – INCOME TAX OFFICER vs LAKHMANI MEWAL DAS. iii) (2008)2 SCC 302 – RAMAN TECH & PROCESS ENGG CO., & ANOTHER vs SOLANKI TRADERS. iv) (1998)8 SCC 1 – WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, MUMBAI & OTHERS. 73 v) W.P.(C) 5537/2018 & CM Nos.21583/2018 & 33487/2018, DECIDED ON 23.08.2018 – M/S.HIMACHAL EMTA POWER LIMITED vs UNION…

M/S Jsw Steel Limited vs. Deputy Director

WP/17894/2015HC 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. ®

…der Section 17(1) of the PML Act. Hence, he has prayed for allowing the writ petitions. He has relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions: i) (2008)14 SCC 186 – ASLAM MOHAMMAD MERCHANT vs COMPETENT AUTHORITY & OTHERS. ii) (1976)3 SCC 757 – INCOME TAX OFFICER vs LAKHMANI MEWAL DAS. iii) (2008)2 SCC 302 – RAMAN TECH & PROCESS ENGG CO., & ANOTHER vs SOLANKI TRADERS. iv) (1998)8 SCC 1 – WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, MUMBAI & OTHERS. 73 v) W.P.(C) 5537/2018 & CM Nos.21583/2018 & 33487/2018, DECIDED ON 23.08.2018 – M/S.HIMACHAL EMTA POWER LIMITED vs UNION…

C Mahadesh @ Avvamahadesh vs. The Deputy Director

WP/46318/2017HC 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. ®

…der Section 17(1) of the PML Act. Hence, he has prayed for allowing the writ petitions. He has relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions: i) (2008)14 SCC 186 – ASLAM MOHAMMAD MERCHANT vs COMPETENT AUTHORITY & OTHERS. ii) (1976)3 SCC 757 – INCOME TAX OFFICER vs LAKHMANI MEWAL DAS. iii) (2008)2 SCC 302 – RAMAN TECH & PROCESS ENGG CO., & ANOTHER vs SOLANKI TRADERS. iv) (1998)8 SCC 1 – WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, MUMBAI & OTHERS. 73 v) W.P.(C) 5537/2018 & CM Nos.21583/2018 & 33487/2018, DECIDED ON 23.08.2018 – M/S.HIMACHAL EMTA POWER LIMITED vs UNION…

M/S. Jsw Steel Limited vs. Deputy Director

WP/24444/2015HC 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. ®

…der Section 17(1) of the PML Act. Hence, he has prayed for allowing the writ petitions. He has relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions: i) (2008)14 SCC 186 – ASLAM MOHAMMAD MERCHANT vs COMPETENT AUTHORITY & OTHERS. ii) (1976)3 SCC 757 – INCOME TAX OFFICER vs LAKHMANI MEWAL DAS. iii) (2008)2 SCC 302 – RAMAN TECH & PROCESS ENGG CO., & ANOTHER vs SOLANKI TRADERS. iv) (1998)8 SCC 1 – WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, MUMBAI & OTHERS. 73 v) W.P.(C) 5537/2018 & CM Nos.21583/2018 & 33487/2018, DECIDED ON 23.08.2018 – M/S.HIMACHAL EMTA POWER LIMITED vs UNION…

ASLAM MOHAMMAD MERCHANT v. COMPETENT AUTHORITY & OTHERS (3 SCC 757) — Cited in 26 Judgments | BharatTax