DR Yadhav v. R K Singh

7 SCC 110Reported decision2003#16118 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2022.

Judgments citing DR Yadhav v. R K Singh

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) KOLKATA vs. M/S ITD-ITD CEM JV (CONSORTIUM OF ITD-ITD CEMENTATION)

ITAT/195/2018HC Calcutta03 Aug 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 138Section 151Section 313

…he purpose of the aforesaid approach is to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice. In another words, there should not be an acquittal of the guilty or a conviction of an innocent person. 25. In Ajit Savant Majagvai vs. State of Karnataka, (1997) 7 SCC 110, this Court set out the following principles that would regulate and govern the hearing of an appeal by the High Court against an order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court: “16. This Court has thus explicitly and clearly laid down the principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by the High Court against an order of ac…

ITO 16(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. PREM RAMANAND SAGAR, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 598/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2021AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 45(3)Section 48Section 500Section 50C

…there from, we find that as per the Latin maxim generallia speciali bus non derogant, which is a rule of construction, the special provisions prevail over the general provisions. In fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D.R Yadav Vs. R.K Singh (2003) 7 SCC 110, had observed, that where there are two conflicting provisions of law in operation in the same field, the rule that specifically operates in that field would apply over the general rule. In the backdrop of our aforesaid observations, we are of a strong conviction that in case the legislature in all its wisdom would had intended to apply the deeming…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(5), HYDERABAD vs. SHRILEKHA BUSINESS CONSULTANCY PVT LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SHRILEKHA FINANCIAL SERVICES INITIALLY AND SUBSEQUEBTLY M/S SHRILEKHA BUSINESS CONSULTANCY ), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1041/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Shrilekha Business Consultancy Ward – 4(5) Pvt. Ltd., (Pan No.Aaycs0021L) Hyderabad (Formerly M/S. Shrilekha Financial Services Initially & Subsequently M/S. Shrilekha Business Consultancy, Both Are With Pan:Aacfs9088A 3-6-478, Iv Floor, Anand Estate, Liberty Road, Himayath Nagar Hyderabad Pan/Gir No. Aacfs9088A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 45(3)Section 56

…special provisions would prevail over general provisions as per the famous latin maxim “Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant”. The ld. AR also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DR Yadhav vs. R K Singh reported in (2003) 7 SCC 110 wherein it was held that when two conflicting provisions of law operate in the same field, the provision that specifically operates in that field would apply over the general rule. Moreover, if the contention of the ld. CIT DR that provisions of Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act would come into operation for every capital contribution made in kind by…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(5), HYDERABAD vs. SHRILEKHA FINANCIAL SERVICES (PRESENTLY KNOWN AS M/S SHRILEKHA BUSINESS CONSULTANCY), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1371/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Shrilekha Business Consultancy Ward – 4(5) Pvt. Ltd., (Pan No.Aaycs0021L) Hyderabad (Formerly M/S. Shrilekha Financial Services Initially & Subsequently M/S. Shrilekha Business Consultancy, Both Are With Pan:Aacfs9088A 3-6-478, Iv Floor, Anand Estate, Liberty Road, Himayath Nagar Hyderabad Pan/Gir No. Aacfs9088A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 45(3)Section 56

…special provisions would prevail over general provisions as per the famous latin maxim “Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant”. The ld. AR also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DR Yadhav vs. R K Singh reported in (2003) 7 SCC 110 wherein it was held that when two conflicting provisions of law operate in the same field, the provision that specifically operates in that field would apply over the general rule. Moreover, if the contention of the ld. CIT DR that provisions of Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act would come into operation for every capital contribution made in kind by…

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. PREM SAGAR, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7442/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodacit- 16(1), Room No.439, Shri. Prem Sagar, Sagar Villa, N.S Road No. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Marg, 12A, Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Vs. Mumbai 400 049. Mumbai – 400 049. Pan – Aapps2469E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. KumarPadmapani Bohra, D.RFor Respondent: Shri. K. Gopal &Ms. Neha Paranjpe, A.R‟s
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 45Section 45(3)Section 48Section 50Section 50C

…there from, we find that as per the Latin maxim generallia speciali bus non derogant, which is a rule of construction, the special provisions prevail over the general provisions. In fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D.R Yadav Vs. R.K Singh (2003) 7 SCC 110, had observed, that where there are two conflicting provisions of law in operation in the same field, the rule that specifically operates in that field would apply over the general rule. In the backdrop of our aforesaid observations, we are of a strong conviction that in case the legislature in all its wisdom would had intended to apply the deeming…

SARRANGAN ASHOK,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 15(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 544/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.544/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Shri Sarrangan Ashok, H37/12, Gita Apartments, Non Corporate Ward – 15(1),. Kumanan Street, Kalashektra Chennai. Colony, Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 090. Pan: Aafpa6211N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri B. Sagadevan, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234ASection 45(2)Section 45(3)Section 50C

…general in nature applicable whether consideration is known and determinate. It is a rule of construction that the special provisions prevail over general provisions as per Latin Maxim. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D.R. Yadhav v. R.K. Singh [2003] 7 SCC 110 held, that when there are two conflicting provisions of law in operation in the same field, the rule that specifically operates in that field would apply over the general rule. Therefore, 13 I.T.A. No. 544/Chny/2019 when there is a specific provision in the statute to deal with a particular kind of transaction then it would be squarely applied. T…

DR Yadhav v. R K Singh (7 SCC 110) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax