Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

2 SCC 114Reported decision2010#12398 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153A Section 69

Issues it is cited on

prescribed person india company document section 14 total income interest

Judgments citing Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

KULDEEP MAKHIJA,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 10(3), PUNE, PUNE

The appeal is DISMISSED with aforestated cost

ITA 946/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Kuldeep Makhija C/O Ghanshyam Shivnani, P/4-903, Oxford Village Premiums, Kedari Nagar, Pune-411040 Pan: Alnpm7224Q. . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Smt Deepa Khare [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umesh Phade [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 253(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC’ BENCH PUNE BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2012-13 Kuldeep Makhija C/o Ghanshyam Shivnani, P/4-903, Oxford Village Premiums, Kedari Nagar, Pune-411040 PAN: ALNPM7224Q. . . . . . . . Appellant V/s The Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(3), Pune. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee by : Smt Deepa Khare [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Mr Umesh Phade [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 05/09/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 01/10/2024 ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; This appeal agita…

VAIDYA SRIKANTAPPA SADASHIVAIAH SRIKANTH,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE- 1, , BANGALORE

ITA 200/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Ravi Shankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 45(5)Section 54

…reshold without considering the merits of the claim. The same rule was reiterated in the case of G.Jayashree and others vs. Bhagwandas S.Patel and others, [2009 (3) SCC 141], (G.Jayashree) and also in Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, [(2010) 2 SCC 114] (Dalip Singh). 21. That apart, it is also noted that the appellant has sought to raise a new ground under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act by contending that even if the earlier round of litigation did not lead any fruitful result and although the acquisition was upheld, nevertheless on the basis of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the acquisition of l…

SMT. RAJNI GUTPA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, 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

…nt 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 114. In the last mentioned judgment, the Court lamented on the increase in the number of cases in which the parties have tried to misuse the process of Court by making false and/or misleading statements or by suppressing the relevant facts or by trying to mislead the Court in passing order in their favour and observed: "For many centuries Indian socie…

M/S. HANUMANTHAPPA CHANDRASHEKAR,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1223/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 46Section 96

…shold without considering the merits of the claim. The same rule was re- iterated in the case of G.Jayashree and others vs. Bhagwandas S.Patel and others, [2009 (3) SCC 141], (G.Jayashree) and also in Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, [(2010) 2 SCC 114] (Dalip Singh). 21. That apart, it is also noted that the appellant has sought to raise a new ground under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act by contending that even if the earlier round of litigation did not lead any fruitful result and although the acquisition was upheld, nevertheless on the basis of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the acquisition of l…

M/S NMDC LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

ITTA/23/2018HC Telangana04 Jun 2021

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

For Appellant: Mr.Ashish Gautam, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate

Section 12(1)Section 12(1)(C)Section 19(1)

…adopted for grant of permanent alimony to wife. However, status of parties, their respective social needs, financial capacity of husband and other obligations must be taken into account. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of U. Sree v. U. Srinivas, (2013) 2 SCC 114 has observed that while granting permanent alimony, no arithmetic formula can be adopted as there cannot be mathematical exactitude. It shall depend upon the status of the parties, their respective social needs, the financial capacity of the husband and other obligations. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under: 84…

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

…n disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible. 5.32. Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114 more particularly para 1 to 10 thereof which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference: WP No. 13261 of 2020 108 1. For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e. “satya” (truth) and “ahimsa” (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily l…

D SIDDAYYA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/106417/2016HC Karnataka21 Sept 2017

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice K. Somashekar

…ances, and the court should make an earnest endeavour to take up those cases, where the subjective purpose of the lis justifies the need for it. (Vide: P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam & Anr., AIR 1980 SC 856; Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2010) 2 SCC 114; State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 402; and Amar Singh v. Union of India & Ors., (2011) 7 SCC 69) - - - 34 30. The learned senior counsel for the aforesaid reasons contended that the respondent No.6 has filed her detailed objections to the writ petition and contended that there is no substance in the w…

Commissioner of Income Tax - II vs. Goodwin Finance Holding Pvt. Ltd.,

ITTA/229/2013HC Telangana10 Jul 2013

…ement. In support of the submission that if a party approaches the Court suppressing material facts, a writ application should not be entertained, he has relied on Supreme Court’s decision in case of Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114. It has also been stated that opposite party No.5 was engaged on contract basis w.e.f. 01.08.1990 till 31.08.1999 to operate the lift. After termination of his service, he had approached the Industrial Tribunal and vide order dated 07.12.2007, he was reinstated against the post of Lift Operator. He joined on 17.04.2008 W.P.(C) No.229 o…