Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd.

2 SCC 111Reported decision2003#10559 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2003 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 144C(13)Section 92CA Section 144C(1)Section 144C(12)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(5)

Judgments citing Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd.

KOCH BUSINESS SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1844/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., D.R

Section 143(3)

…ing from it (see Dr. (Mrs.) Chanchal Goyal v. State of Rajasthan 2003 (3) SCC 485). It is equally settled that a singular different fact or point may change the precedential value of a judgment (see Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. (2003) 2 SCC 111). 22. So far, the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai (supra) is concerned on which reliance is placed by Sri Vijhay K Punna, it is profitable to note that in the said case, the Supreme Court considered Section 263(2) of the Income Tax Act, in the said Section the word used is ‘made’ and not ‘receipt of the order’. The Supre…

TUNGABHADRA PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,SINDHANUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, RAICHUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1844/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., D.R

Section 143(3)

M/S. GAUTAMI POWER LIMITED vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD

ITTA/316/2011HC Telangana15 Dec 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

…t as the Act provides inspection to be done by the Council, and hence, it caimot be done in any manner other than the Council itself, has invited. our • attention to the decision in Bhavnagar University v. Palitcna Sugar Miii •(P.) Ltd. and others, (2003) 2 SCC 111. It is also his submission that the Regional Committee being subordinate to the Council and the legislature having vested the power in the superior body, the Conirnittee cannot so • exercise. To buttress the said contention; he has placed reliance on Taylor • v'. Taylor, (1875-76) L.R. 1 Ch.D 426, Nazir Ahmad v, King .Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 25…

PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. A.H. MULTISOFT PVT. LTD.

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/9/2025HC Delhi30 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

Section 483

…tigation) [(2002) 257 ITR 123 (Del)] , State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. [(1991) 4 SCC 139] , A-One Granites v. State of U.P. [(2001) 3 SCC 537 : 2001 AIR SCW 848] and Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. [(2003) 2 SCC 111] ] 146. Although decisions are galore on this point, we may refer to a recent one in State of Gujarat v. Akhil Gujarat Pravasi V.S. Mahamandal [(2004) 5 SCC 155: AIR 2004 SC 3894] wherein this Court held: (SCC p. 172, para 19) ―It is trite that any observation made during the course of reasoning in a judgment should not be read divorced from…

IVY COMPTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 908/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2020-21 Ivy Competech Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaac18884K. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nageswara Rao, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. M. Narmada, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 (Hybrid Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement: 04.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Nageswara Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…der'. The Supreme Court emphasized the cardinal principle of the law that provision of statute is to be read as it is and nothing is to be added or taken away from the provision of the statute. In other words, this is well settled that 2003 (3) SCC 485 (2003) 2 SCC 111 when language of statute is clear and 11 unambiguous, it has to be given effect to irrespective of its consequences (see Nelson Motis vs. Union of India 10). 23. The pivotal question is whether in view of the language employed in Section 144C(13) whether directions of DRP can be said to be received by the assessing officer on 30.06.2022. A conjoin…

QUARTZ COMMECIAL PVT LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(3)

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/10/2025HC Delhi21 Jan 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA,HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 483

PRINCIPAL COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, SAMBALPUR vs. BINAY KUMAR JINDAL, HUF

Accordingly, this appeal fails and is dismissed

ITA/7/2023HC Orissa02 Mar 2023

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Section 174Section 189

…ood in the background of the facts of that case. It has been said a long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it." 16. In Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd (2003) 2 SCC 111 (vide paragraph 59), this Court observed:- 36 "59….. It is well settled that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision." 38. As held by the learned Single Judge and rightly in our opinion, the effect of breach of the statutory duty of an assessee imposed on him/h…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. IMPERIAL HOUSING VENTURES P. LTD.

Accordingly, LPA 362/2020 is allowed,

ITA/86/2022HC Delhi13 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

Section 5Section 5(3)Section 8(3)

…ome Tax (Investigation) [(2002) 257 ITR 123 (Del)] , State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. [(1991) 4 SCC 139] , A-One Granites v. State of U.P. [(2001) 3 SCC 537 : 2001 AIR SCW 848] and Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. [(2003) 2 SCC 111] ] 146. Although decisions are galore on this point, we may refer to a recent one in State of Gujarat v. Akhil Gujarat Pravasi V.S. Mahamandal [(2004) 5 SCC 155: AIR 2004 SC 3894] wherein this Court held: (SCC p. 172, para 19) ―It is trite that any observation made during the course of reasoning in a judgment should not be read divorced from…

DIPAL SURESHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 387/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: ShriTej Shah, ARFor Respondent: ShriL. P. Jain, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 54F(1)

…he interpretation of the beneficial provision of Section 54F the Hon’ble High Court has further been pleased to rely upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd. reported in [2003] 2 SCC 111, on this ratio that the scope of the legislation on the intention of the Legislature cannot be enlarged when the language of the provision is plain and unambiguous. In other words, statutory enactments must ordinarily be construed according to its plain meaning and no words shall be added, altered or modified unless it is plainly necessary to do so…

ITW SIGNODE INDIA LTD. vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

Appeal is allowed in part but

C.A. No.-007868-007868 - 1995Supreme Court19 Nov 2003

For Respondent: Collector of Central Excise

Section 11A

…1A can be taken into consideration whereby and whereunder a legal fiction is created. The effect of creating such legal fiction is well-known and need not be reiterated. [See Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. and others (2003) 2 SCC 111, State of Karnataka Vs. Vishwabharathi House Building Coop. Soc. & Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 412, High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Vs. P.P. Singh and Anr 2003 (4) SCC 239 and Dipak Chandra Ruhidas Vs. Chandan Kumar Sarkar (2003) 7 SCC 66] Before us, the constitutionality of Section 11A as amended in the year 2000 has not been questioned.…