Dr. P. Nalla Thampy v. Shankar

3 SCC 242Supreme Court of India2000#1337 most cited

What is Dr. P. Nalla Thampy v. Shankar authority for?

A court or quasi-judicial authority, tasked with deciding disputes, inherently possesses the power to dismiss a case for default if a party is absent at a hearing. It is not obligated to keep the matter pending or pursue it on the absent party's behalf.

85

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Dr. P. Nalla Thampy v. Shankar · New India Assurance v. Srinivasan · 3 SCC 242 · inherent power to dismiss for default · non-prosecution of appeal · non-appearance · Section 250 Income Tax Act · Section 253 Income Tax Act · quasi-judicial body · dismissal of appeal for non-compliance

Sections most often in play

Section 250Section 147Section 1961Section 148Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 68Section 144

Issues it is cited on

section 114section 253(3)section 253(5)reasoned ordersection 80p(2)section 253genuineness of the transactionsection 80pdelay in filing appealunexplained investmentscrutiny assessmentlimited scrutiny

Judgments citing Dr. P. Nalla Thampy v. Shankar

Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 30(2)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 918/MUM/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh, Income Tax Officer 33, Ghanshyam Dube Chawl No. 2, Ward 30(2)(6), Deep Narayan Dube Road, Vs. Earlier Ward 24(2)(2), Pragatinagar, Dahisar (E), Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai-400068. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aizpp 6142 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Dipen Tanna, ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Smita Nair, DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

…the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Vs. Shankar (1984 P. Nalla Thampy Vs. Shankar (1984 (Supp) SCC 63 and the case of (Supp) SCC 63 and the case of New India Assurance vs. Srinivasan (2000) 3 SCC New India Assurance vs. Srinivasan (2000) 3 SCC 242. In the latter 242. In the latter case, the Apex Court has held as und case, the Apex Court has held as under :- "That every court or judicial body or authority, which has a duty to "That every court or judicial body or authority, which has a duty to "That every court or judicial body or authority, which has a duty to decide a list between two par…

Suman Organics & Fertilizers (P) Ltd, Dhule vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Dhule

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1324/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani
Section 143(2)

…f India, High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT reported in 23 ITR 480 and the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Vs. Shankar and New India Assurance Vs. Srinivasan reported in 1984 (Supp) SCC 63 and (2003) 3 SCC 242, respectively for the proposition that a negligent assessee should not be given many opportunities just because that quantum of amount involved is high and necessary course of action is to draw adverse inference. Further, placed reliance in the case of Whirlpool of India Ltd. Vs. DCIT of ITAT, Delhi Benches but however, proceeded to dispose of the…

Smt.Veena J Kanungo, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 20(3)(5), Mumbai

ITA 2268/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2268/Mum/2018, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Sh Jayesh KanungoFor Respondent: Sh. Rajeev K

…refore, Ld. CIT(A) while relying upon the several judgments including that of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. P. Nalla Thampy vrs. Shankar (1984) SCC 63 3 I.T.A. No. 2268/Mum/2018 Smt. Veena J. Kanaungo and New India Assurance vrs. Srinivasan (2000) 3 SCC 242 had decided the appeal ex-parte. 4. In our view, it was the bounded duty of the parties i.e assessee as well as the Department to appear before the Ld. CIT(A). Since, this was the assessee’s appeal, therefore it was all the more important for the assessee to appear before Ld. CIT(A). However, the assessee had not acted with due diligence. Neverthe…

Commissioner of Income Tax-3 International Taxation vs. Virage Logic International India

The appeals stand disposed of with above directions

ITA/173/2016HC Delhi09 Nov 2016

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

…negligent for the said accident. Since the accident was a head-on collision, both drivers ought to have been held liable for contributory negligence, in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidyadhar Dutta & Ors. (2006) 3 SCC 242. viii. As regards computation of compensation, it was contended that age of the deceased was 45 years as per the date of birth mentioned in the driving licence on the date of accident, which was corroborated by post-mortem report, which mentioned age as 44 years, and Ration Card, which also mentioned age of deceased as 44. Accordingly, multi…

Commissioner of Income Tax - II vs. Heritage Goods (I) Ltd

The appeal is disposed of accordingly

ITTA/340/2013HC Telangana06 Apr 2016

Bench: Honourable Mrs. Justice Malasri Nandi Judgment & Order (Cav) Date : 04-04-2024 Heard Mr. M.P. Choudhury, Learned Counsel For The Appellants. Also Heard Mr. R.K. Bhatra & Mr. R.C. Paul, Learned Counsel For The Respondents.

For Respondent: MS P HUJURI
Section 279

…nsurer of the said truck is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant/appellant. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on a case law- Bijoy Kumar Dugar vs. Bidya Dhar Dutta & Ors. reported in (2006) 3 SCC 242. 13. Admittedly, three witnesses were examined from the side of the appellant/claimant and they were not present at the time of the accident. On the basis of an inquiry made by the informant one S.I. of police that the driver of the Ambasador car coming in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the truck as a result of which the acciden…