Biharilalllobray v. Roshan Lal Dohray

1 SCC 551Supreme Court of India1984#10915 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing Biharilalllobray v. Roshan Lal Dohray

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1116/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…sion that it is instrumentality/agent of the State and the Article 289(1) is applicable to the assessee and the provisions of Act are not applicable to the assessee. 2.47 The ld. A.R. submitted that in Biharilalllobray v. Roshan Lal Dohray reported in (1984) 1 SCC 551 (SC), the Supreme Court held that, even though the incorporation of a body corporate may suggest that the statute intended it to be a statutory corporation independent ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 20 of 60 of the Government it is not conclusive on the question whether it is really so…

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1115/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…sion that it is instrumentality/agent of the State and the Article 289(1) is applicable to the assessee and the provisions of Act are not applicable to the assessee. 2.47 The ld. A.R. submitted that in Biharilalllobray v. Roshan Lal Dohray reported in (1984) 1 SCC 551 (SC), the Supreme Court held that, even though the incorporation of a body corporate may suggest that the statute intended it to be a statutory corporation independent ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 20 of 60 of the Government it is not conclusive on the question whether it is really so…

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1114/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…sion that it is instrumentality/agent of the State and the Article 289(1) is applicable to the assessee and the provisions of Act are not applicable to the assessee. 2.47 The ld. A.R. submitted that in Biharilalllobray v. Roshan Lal Dohray reported in (1984) 1 SCC 551 (SC), the Supreme Court held that, even though the incorporation of a body corporate may suggest that the statute intended it to be a statutory corporation independent ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 20 of 60 of the Government it is not conclusive on the question whether it is really so…

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1113/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…sion that it is instrumentality/agent of the State and the Article 289(1) is applicable to the assessee and the provisions of Act are not applicable to the assessee. 2.47 The ld. A.R. submitted that in Biharilalllobray v. Roshan Lal Dohray reported in (1984) 1 SCC 551 (SC), the Supreme Court held that, even though the incorporation of a body corporate may suggest that the statute intended it to be a statutory corporation independent ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 20 of 60 of the Government it is not conclusive on the question whether it is really so…

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1112/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…sion that it is instrumentality/agent of the State and the Article 289(1) is applicable to the assessee and the provisions of Act are not applicable to the assessee. 2.47 The ld. A.R. submitted that in Biharilalllobray v. Roshan Lal Dohray reported in (1984) 1 SCC 551 (SC), the Supreme Court held that, even though the incorporation of a body corporate may suggest that the statute intended it to be a statutory corporation independent ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 20 of 60 of the Government it is not conclusive on the question whether it is really so…

Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 1, Bangalore vs. M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1048/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…sion that it is instrumentality/agent of the State and the Article 289(1) is applicable to the assessee and the provisions of Act are not applicable to the assessee. 2.47 The ld. A.R. submitted that in Biharilalllobray v. Roshan Lal Dohray reported in (1984) 1 SCC 551 (SC), the Supreme Court held that, even though the incorporation of a body corporate may suggest that the statute intended it to be a statutory corporation independent ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 20 of 60 of the Government it is not conclusive on the question whether it is really so…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s. V.Dhana Reddy AND Co

ITTA/137/2017HC Telangana14 Nov 2017

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

For Appellant: - National Insurance Co. Ltd. Lucknow Thru. AssttFor Respondent: - Gaurav Sharma And Anr
Section 163Section 166Section 173

…Company Limited and Another; (2011) 10 SCC 756, Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others; (2003) 2 SCC 274, Govind Yadav Vs. New India Insurance Company Limited; 2011 (10) SCC 683, R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd and Others; (1995) 1 SCC 551, Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another; (2011) 1 SCC 343/ 2011 ACJ 1, G. Ravindranath @ R. Chowdary Vs. E Srinivas and Another; (2013) 12 SCC 455, Lakshmana Gowda B.N. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Another; (2023) SCC OnLine SC 786, Jagdish Vs. Mohan and Others; (2018) 4 SCC 571, U.P.S.R.T.C., Ghaziabad Vs. Smt. Neerja…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs. M/S Sain Medicaments

ITTA/275/2010HC Telangana14 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 162Section 166Section 168

…) Medical expenses including those that the victim may be required to undertake in future; and (v) Loss of expectation of life.” 16. Reliance is also placed in case titled R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 551, “9. had categorically stated that in injury cases, compensation ought to be assessed as Pecuniary Damages i.e. the costs incurred by the claimant for the injury and Special Damages which includes damages for mental and physical shock, loss of amenities, loss of expectation of life and inconvenience. It may be observed that cumulatively, only…

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) vs. M/s. Hindustan RAtna (JV)

The Appeals are disposed of by modifying the award dated 20

ITTA/414/2014HC Telangana01 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 166

…the determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales.” 15. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. [R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 250] , dealing with the different heads of compensation in injury cases this Court held thus : (SCC p. 556, para 9) “9. Broadly speaking while fixing the amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are…

Biharilalllobray v. Roshan Lal Dohray (1 SCC 551) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax