C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P

10 SCC 193Reported decision1996#10924 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Koundinya Educational Society

ITTA/179/2019HC Andhra Pradesh29 Oct 2019

Bench: C.PRAVEEN KUMAR,CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

…ry power of judicial review to ensure that the rights of the citizens are duly protected. That the quest for justice is a compulsion of judicial conscience, found its expression in C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P. [C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P., (1996) 10 SCC 193 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1205] in the following extract: (SCC p. 223, para 56) 166 (2016) 11 SCC 31 CJ, MSM,J and DVSS,J W.P.Nos.13203 of 2020 & batch 266 “56. … A court of equity must so act, within the permissible limits so as to prevent injustice. „Equity is not past the age of ch…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I vs. Shri Suresh Nanda

ITA/847/2016HC Delhi28 Nov 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

…nt as proof of dishonest intention for a wrongful benefit or gain is essential to be proved. The appellant can at best be held to be negligent, for which he cannot be convicted. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported as (1996) 10 SCC 193 C. Cenga Reddy and Ors. Vs. State of U.P., (2003) 9 SCC 700 R. Balakrishna Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and (2012) 9 SCC 512 CBI Vs. K. Naryan Rao. Reliance is further placed on the decision of the Jharkhand High Court in Crl.M.P. No.506/2015 decided on 5th CRL.A. 134/2016 & conn. matters…

Daikin Airconditioning India Pvt Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/269/2016HC Delhi27 Jul 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

…nt as proof of dishonest intention for a wrongful benefit or gain is essential to be proved. The appellant can at best be held to be negligent, for which he cannot be convicted. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported as (1996) 10 SCC 193 C. Cenga Reddy and Ors. Vs. State of U.P., (2003) 9 SCC 700 R. Balakrishna Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and (2012) 9 SCC 512 CBI Vs. K. Naryan Rao. Reliance is further placed on the decision of the Jharkhand High Court in Crl.M.P. No.506/2015 decided on 5th CRL.A. 134/2016 & conn. matters…

Commissioner of Income Tax -XI vs. Amit Malhotra

ITA/396/2016HC Delhi26 Jul 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

…nt as proof of dishonest intention for a wrongful benefit or gain is essential to be proved. The appellant can at best be held to be negligent, for which he cannot be convicted. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported as (1996) 10 SCC 193 C. Cenga Reddy and Ors. Vs. State of U.P., (2003) 9 SCC 700 R. Balakrishna Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and (2012) 9 SCC 512 CBI Vs. K. Naryan Rao. Reliance is further placed on the decision of the Jharkhand High Court in Crl.M.P. No.506/2015 decided on 5th CRL.A. 134/2016 & conn. matters…

Pr. CIT Central-1 vs. Amrapali Grand

ITA/323/2016HC Delhi31 May 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…nt as proof of dishonest intention for a wrongful benefit or gain is essential to be proved. The appellant can at best be held to be negligent, for which he cannot be convicted. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported as (1996) 10 SCC 193 C. Cenga Reddy and Ors. Vs. State of U.P., (2003) 9 SCC 700 R. Balakrishna Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and (2012) 9 SCC 512 CBI Vs. K. Naryan Rao. Reliance is further placed on the decision of the Jharkhand High Court in Crl.M.P. No.506/2015 decided on 5th CRL.A. 134/2016 & conn. matters…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd

ITA/297/2016HC Delhi06 May 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…nt as proof of dishonest intention for a wrongful benefit or gain is essential to be proved. The appellant can at best be held to be negligent, for which he cannot be convicted. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported as (1996) 10 SCC 193 C. Cenga Reddy and Ors. Vs. State of U.P., (2003) 9 SCC 700 R. Balakrishna Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and (2012) 9 SCC 512 CBI Vs. K. Naryan Rao. Reliance is further placed on the decision of the Jharkhand High Court in Crl.M.P. No.506/2015 decided on 5th CRL.A. 134/2016 & conn. matters…

Commissioner Ofincome Tax(Central)-II vs. Spn Milk Products Industries Pvt. Ltd

ITA/241/2016HC Delhi06 Apr 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…nt as proof of dishonest intention for a wrongful benefit or gain is essential to be proved. The appellant can at best be held to be negligent, for which he cannot be convicted. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported as (1996) 10 SCC 193 C. Cenga Reddy and Ors. Vs. State of U.P., (2003) 9 SCC 700 R. Balakrishna Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and (2012) 9 SCC 512 CBI Vs. K. Naryan Rao. Reliance is further placed on the decision of the Jharkhand High Court in Crl.M.P. No.506/2015 decided on 5th CRL.A. 134/2016 & conn. matters…

Commissioner of Income Tax-(Central)-I vs. Siddharath Sareen

ITA/151/2016HC Delhi23 Feb 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…nt as proof of dishonest intention for a wrongful benefit or gain is essential to be proved. The appellant can at best be held to be negligent, for which he cannot be convicted. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported as (1996) 10 SCC 193 C. Cenga Reddy and Ors. Vs. State of U.P., (2003) 9 SCC 700 R. Balakrishna Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and (2012) 9 SCC 512 CBI Vs. K. Naryan Rao. Reliance is further placed on the decision of the Jharkhand High Court in Crl.M.P. No.506/2015 decided on 5th CRL.A. 134/2016 & conn. matters…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Jubliant Oil & Gas Pvt.Ltd

ITA/134/2016HC Delhi15 Feb 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…nt as proof of dishonest intention for a wrongful benefit or gain is essential to be proved. The appellant can at best be held to be negligent, for which he cannot be convicted. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported as (1996) 10 SCC 193 C. Cenga Reddy and Ors. Vs. State of U.P., (2003) 9 SCC 700 R. Balakrishna Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and (2012) 9 SCC 512 CBI Vs. K. Naryan Rao. Reliance is further placed on the decision of the Jharkhand High Court in Crl.M.P. No.506/2015 decided on 5th CRL.A. 134/2016 & conn. matters…

C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P (10 SCC 193) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax