Bharat Singh v. Management of New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre

2 SCC 614Reported decision1986#13736 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2022.

Judgments citing Bharat Singh v. Management of New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX DELHI vs. QUICK HEAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

In the result, the appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-005167 - 2022Supreme Court05 Aug 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

Section 35LSection 65Section 66ESection 73(1)Section 83

…REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5167 OF 2022 (DIARY NO. 24399 OF 2020) COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX DELHI …APPELLANT(S) VERSUS QUICK HEAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED …RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 51685169 OF 2022 (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CIVIL) NOS. 67156716 OF 2022) J U D G M E N T J.B. PARDIWALA, J. : 1. Since the issues raised in both the captioned cases are the same, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Civil Appeal (Diary No. 24399 of 2020) 2. Delay condoned. 1 Digitally signed by San…

M/S. RATAN CONDUCTORS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 1259/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1259/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Ratan Conductors, Cuke A.C.I.T., Vs. H-377(B), Road No. 17, Vki Area, Circle-4, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aabfr 8166 P Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 21/08/2019 For The A.Y. 2012-13 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs. 17,73,769/- On Account Of Non Tds:- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.17,73,769/- Paid To M/S Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. (Rs. 298826/-) & M/S Future Capital (Rs. 1474943/-) On Account Of Non Deduction Of Tds Thereon By Invoking Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The It Act 1961. (A) The Assessee Firm Paid, Interest Of Rs. 2,98,826/- To Nbfc. M/S Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. & Rs.14,74,943/- To M/S Future Capital Another Nbfc. The Assessee Firm Raised Loan

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 40

…rospective, on the ground that they may affect vested rights. But these statues are construed liberally when justified and rule against retrospectively may be applied with less resistance [See Bharat Singh v. Management of New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre [1986] 2 SCC 614 and Workmen Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P.) Ltd. v. Management AIR 1973 SC 1227 18. It is interesting to note that earlier English decisions have held that an enactment fixing a penalty or maximum penalty for offence is merely procedural for the purpose of determining retrospectively [See DPP v. Lamb [1941] 2 KB 89) and R.V. Oliver [1944]…

M/S. SEATEL ELECTRONICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-2(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of the

ITA 591/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Ranka (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 40

…ospective, on the ground that they may affect vested rights. But these statutes are construed liberally when justified and rule against retrospectivity may be applied with less resistance [See Bharat Singh v. Management of New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre [1986] 2 SCC 614 and Workmen Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P.) Ltd. v. Management AIR 1973 SC 1227. 18. It is interesting to note that earlier English decisions have held that an enactment fixing a penalty or maximum penalty for ITA 591/JP/2017_ 5 M/s Seatel Electronics Vs ITO offence is merely procedural for the purpose of determining retrospectivity[See…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI VI vs. TALBROS (P) LTD.

ITA/218/2013HC Delhi06 Sept 2013

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

Section 139Section 260ASection 40

…on the ground that they may affect vested rights. But these statutes are construed liberally when justified and rule against retrospectivity may be applied with less resistance [See Bharat Singh versus Management of New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre, (1986) 2 SCC 614 and Workmen of Messrs Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company of India (P) Ltd. Versus Management, AIR 1973 SC 1227]. 18. It is interesting to note that earlier English decisions have held that an enactment fixing a penalty or maximum penalty for offence is merely procedural for the purpose of determining retrospectivity [See DPP versus Lamb, [1941]…

Commissioner of Income Tax XIII

ITA/24/2013HC Delhi06 Sept 2013

Section 139Section 260ASection 40

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. AMADEUS INDIA PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/938/2011HC Delhi28 Nov 2011

For Appellant: Ms Suruchi AggarwalFor Respondent: Mr M.S. Syali, Sr. Advocate with Mr Mayank Nagi &

Section 144CSection 260ASection 92BSection 92CSection 92E

…is affected, has to be prospective in nature. For this proposition, he placed reliance on the Supreme Court decisions in STO v. Oriental Coal Corporation: (1988) SCC Suppl. 308 and Bharat Singh v. Management of New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre and Others: (1986) 2 SCC 614. He also submitted that the insertion of sub-section (2A) is clear indication that there can be more than one international transaction between an assessee and an associated enterprise. Therefore, in the period prior to the insertion of sub- section (2A), it is only that international transaction which had been specifically referred to the Transfer…

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

ITTA/227/2011HC Telangana27 Jun 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

…and batch dated 25.11.2011 107. AIR 1990 AP 171 108. (2001) 5 SCC 407 109. (2001)8 SCC 676 4 110. (2001) 8 SCC 540 111. (2004)11 SCC 625 112. (1986) 4 SCC 746 113. AIR 1992 SC 96 114. (1972) 4 SCC 396 115. (1997) 5 SCC 536 116. (2003) 2 SCC 614 117. (2011) 2 SCC 258 Coram: Hon’ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. Hon’ble N.S. Dhanik, J. Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. Special Appeal Nos. 227 of 2011, 236 of 2013, 237 of 2013, 275 of 2013 and 276 of 2013 are preferred, by the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs-II against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Peti…