ATION OF THE CITY OF AHMEDABAD AND OTHERS. 39. (1978) 3 SCC 544: MADHAV HAYAWADANRAO HOSKOT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. 40 (3 SCC 261)

Q: What is ATION OF THE CITY OF AHMEDABAD AND OTHERS. 39. (1978) 3 SCC 544: MADHAV HAYAWADANRAO HOSKOT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. 40 authority for?

The constitutional validity of an enactment can be supported by arguments that it would pass legal tests.

Q: How many judgments cite ATION OF THE CITY OF AHMEDABAD AND OTHERS. 39. (1978) 3 SCC 544: MADHAV HAYAWADANRAO HOSKOT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. 40?

106 judgments on BharatTax cite ATION OF THE CITY OF AHMEDABAD AND OTHERS. 39. (1978) 3 SCC 544: MADHAV HAYAWADANRAO HOSKOT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. 40 (3 SCC 261), spanning 2017 to 2025.

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does ATION OF THE CITY OF AHMEDABAD AND OTHERS. 39. (1978) 3 SCC 544: MADHAV HAYAWADANRAO HOSKOT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. 40 come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 119(2)(b), Section 139(1), Section 139(4), Section 143(1), Section 143(3), Section 153A.

Shri Sajadiali Sardar Patel Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd., Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot.

ITA 607/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.607/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Sajadiali Sardar Patel Seva Ito Ward-2, (1) (2) Vs. Sahkari Mandali Ltd. Rajkot – 360001 At Sajadiyali – Rajkot New Aayakar Bhavan, At Sajadiyali Taluka, Race Course Ring Road, Jamkandorana, Dist, Rajkot – 360001 Sajadiyali – Rajkot 360001 Gujrat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas2374L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld .Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28 / 01 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22 / 04/2025

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld .Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80PSection 84

…under specific statutory provisions like Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This argument is substantiated by various landmark judgments, including State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nooh (AIR 1958 SC 86), L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261, and Union of India v. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association (2010), as well as the constitutional provisions under Article 323B. xii). L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261 The Supreme Court in this case clarified that tribunals, including ITAT, are subordinate to the High Courts and ITA NO. 607-RJT-2024 SHRI SAJADIALI SARDAR…

Smt. Rajni Gutpa, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, 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

…clining relief to a party whose conduct is blameworthy and who has not approached the Court with clean hands - Hari Narain v. Badri Das AIR 1963 SC 1558, Welcome Hotel v. State of A.P. (1983) 4 SCC 575. G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Government of Karnataka (1991) 3 SCC 261. SP Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1. A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of AP (2007) 4 SCC 221, Prestige Lights Limited v. SBI (2007) 8 SCC 449, Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank of India (2008) 2 SCC 326, K.D. Sharma v. SAIL. (2008) 12 SCC 481. G. Jayashree v Bhagwandas S Patel (2009) 3 SCC 141 and Dalip Singh v. State of U.P (2010) 2 SCC…

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Delhi vs. Acb (India) Limited, New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed barred by CBDT

ITA 2726/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.2707/Del/2022, A.Y. 2018-19 Ito, Vs. M/S. Broad Ways Security & Ward 5(1), Detective Pvt. Ltd. Delhi 48A, Dda Flats, Shahpurjat, New Delhi Pan : Aaacb5053F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 253Section 253(2)Section 36(1)(va)

…ble Supreme Court ITA No. 2707 & Ors. 4 and the Hon’ble High Courts alone are empowered to strike down the said provisions. Reference for this may still be made to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Others, (1997) 3 SCC 261. 8. In fact Sub-Section (2) of Section 253 of the Act, which gives jurisdiction to this Tribunal to hear the appeals restrict the scope of remedy of Appeal to the Revenue, as the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner only may direct the Assessing Officer to appeal before Tribunal against the order, if Pr. CIT objects to any order of First Appellat…

DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Blackmelon Advance Technology Company Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Accordingly, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed barred by CBDT

ITA 2721/DEL/2022[2022]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2023

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.2707/Del/2022, A.Y. 2018-19 Ito, Vs. M/S. Broad Ways Security & Ward 5(1), Detective Pvt. Ltd. Delhi 48A, Dda Flats, Shahpurjat, New Delhi Pan : Aaacb5053F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 253Section 253(2)Section 36(1)(va)

…ble Supreme Court ITA No. 2707 & Ors. 4 and the Hon’ble High Courts alone are empowered to strike down the said provisions. Reference for this may still be made to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Others, (1997) 3 SCC 261. 8. In fact Sub-Section (2) of Section 253 of the Act, which gives jurisdiction to this Tribunal to hear the appeals restrict the scope of remedy of Appeal to the Revenue, as the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner only may direct the Assessing Officer to appeal before Tribunal against the order, if Pr. CIT objects to any order of First Appellat…

ITO Ward5(1), Delhi vs. Broad Ways Security and Detective Pvt. Ltd, Delhi

Accordingly, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed barred by CBDT

ITA 2707/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.2707/Del/2022, A.Y. 2018-19 Ito, Vs. M/S. Broad Ways Security & Ward 5(1), Detective Pvt. Ltd. Delhi 48A, Dda Flats, Shahpurjat, New Delhi Pan : Aaacb5053F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 253Section 253(2)Section 36(1)(va)

…ble Supreme Court ITA No. 2707 & Ors. 4 and the Hon’ble High Courts alone are empowered to strike down the said provisions. Reference for this may still be made to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Others, (1997) 3 SCC 261. 8. In fact Sub-Section (2) of Section 253 of the Act, which gives jurisdiction to this Tribunal to hear the appeals restrict the scope of remedy of Appeal to the Revenue, as the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner only may direct the Assessing Officer to appeal before Tribunal against the order, if Pr. CIT objects to any order of First Appellat…

The Mangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd vs. Sri A Chandrasekhar

WP/15230/2022HC Karnataka17 Oct 2022

Bench: G.NARENDAR,P.N.DESAI

…rt has heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Associated Cement Companies Limited v. P.N. Sharma, AIR 1965 SC 1595 (paras 44 & 45), and the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261. 19. While answering the aforesaid issue/question, the relevant provisions of the 2019 Act, which are relevant for our purpose, i.e., Sections 58 and 67 are required to be referred to. Sections 58 & 67 of the 2019 Act read as under: “58. Jurisdiction of National Commission.— (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National…

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

…SCC 575 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 872 : AIR 1983 SC 1015] the Court held that a party which has misled the Court in passing an order in its favour is not entitled to be heard on the merits of the case. 5. In G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka [(1991) 3 SCC 261 : AIR 1991 SC 1726] the Court denied relief to the appellant who had concealed the fact that the award was WP No. 13261 of 2020 110 not made by the Land Acquisition Officer within the time specified in Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act because of the stay order passed by the High Court. While dismissing the special leave petition,…