E.Micheal Raj v. Intelligence Officer, NCB

5 SCC 161Reported decision2011#10651 most cited

What is E.Micheal Raj v. Intelligence Officer, NCB authority for?

For offenses under the NDPS Act involving heroin, the actual quantity of heroin, not the total weight of the substance, is considered for punishment. This requires testing the purity of the heroin found.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2016.

Also referred to as

E. Micheal Raj v. Intelligence Officer · NCB · NDPS Act · heroin quantity · actual heroin content · purity test · punishment · seized substance

Judgments citing E.Micheal Raj v. Intelligence Officer, NCB

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-2 vs. M/S Bose Corporation (India) Pvt. L to

The appeal is allowed to the above extent

ITA/462/2016HC Delhi23 Aug 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

Section 21Section 23Section 28

…f authorities to the effect that, while punishing a person under the NDPS Act for dealing in heroin, the actual quantity of heroin contained in the goods found with the person/ with which he is dealing. E.Micheal Raj v. Intelligence Officer, NCB, (2008) 5 SCC 161. 64. One of the most oft-cited decisions, on this aspect, is E. Micheal Raj v. Intelligence Officer, NCB, (2008) 5 SCC 161. CRL.A. 462/2016 Page 42 of 57 65. In the said case, two persons – one of whom happened to be E. Mic…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-I, New Delhi vs. M/S Aci Wireless Ltd

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/313/2013HC Delhi10 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…e tendered at trial as PW-17 would remain admissible. [Sital Singh v. Emperor, (1919) ILR 46 Cal 700; Banu Singh v. Emperor, (1906) ILR 33 Cal 1353; Laxmipat Choraria and Others v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 938; Chandran v. State of Kerala, (2011) 5 SCC 161; Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 1 SCC 10. This contention is, therefore, rejected. 478. While most appellants have restricted their challenge to this appeal through the common arguments advanced in preceding paragraphs, there are some unique facts with regard to certain individual appeals. I. Members who signed both lists C…

Commissioner of Income Tax: Delhi-V vs. Rites Ltd

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/295/2013HC Delhi06 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…e tendered at trial as PW-17 would remain admissible. [Sital Singh v. Emperor, (1919) ILR 46 Cal 700; Banu Singh v. Emperor, (1906) ILR 33 Cal 1353; Laxmipat Choraria and Others v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 938; Chandran v. State of Kerala, (2011) 5 SCC 161; Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 1 SCC 10. This contention is, therefore, rejected. 478. While most appellants have restricted their challenge to this appeal through the common arguments advanced in preceding paragraphs, there are some unique facts with regard to certain individual appeals. I. Members who signed both lists C…

Commissioner of Income Tax : Delhi -V vs. Rited Ltd

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/293/2013HC Delhi06 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…e tendered at trial as PW-17 would remain admissible. [Sital Singh v. Emperor, (1919) ILR 46 Cal 700; Banu Singh v. Emperor, (1906) ILR 33 Cal 1353; Laxmipat Choraria and Others v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 938; Chandran v. State of Kerala, (2011) 5 SCC 161; Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 1 SCC 10. This contention is, therefore, rejected. 478. While most appellants have restricted their challenge to this appeal through the common arguments advanced in preceding paragraphs, there are some unique facts with regard to certain individual appeals. I. Members who signed both lists C…

Director of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. R.L. Khera Charitable Trust

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/268/2013HC Delhi27 Nov 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…e tendered at trial as PW-17 would remain admissible. [Sital Singh v. Emperor, (1919) ILR 46 Cal 700; Banu Singh v. Emperor, (1906) ILR 33 Cal 1353; Laxmipat Choraria and Others v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 938; Chandran v. State of Kerala, (2011) 5 SCC 161; Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 1 SCC 10. This contention is, therefore, rejected. 478. While most appellants have restricted their challenge to this appeal through the common arguments advanced in preceding paragraphs, there are some unique facts with regard to certain individual appeals. I. Members who signed both lists C…

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, New Delhi vs. Mira Exim Ltd

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/346/2013HC Delhi03 Oct 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…e tendered at trial as PW-17 would remain admissible. [Sital Singh v. Emperor, (1919) ILR 46 Cal 700; Banu Singh v. Emperor, (1906) ILR 33 Cal 1353; Laxmipat Choraria and Others v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 938; Chandran v. State of Kerala, (2011) 5 SCC 161; Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 1 SCC 10. This contention is, therefore, rejected. 478. While most appellants have restricted their challenge to this appeal through the common arguments advanced in preceding paragraphs, there are some unique facts with regard to certain individual appeals. I. Members who signed both lists C…

CIT VI vs. Verizon India Pvt Ltd

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/277/2013HC Delhi29 May 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…e tendered at trial as PW-17 would remain admissible. [Sital Singh v. Emperor, (1919) ILR 46 Cal 700; Banu Singh v. Emperor, (1906) ILR 33 Cal 1353; Laxmipat Choraria and Others v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 938; Chandran v. State of Kerala, (2011) 5 SCC 161; Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 1 SCC 10. This contention is, therefore, rejected. 478. While most appellants have restricted their challenge to this appeal through the common arguments advanced in preceding paragraphs, there are some unique facts with regard to certain individual appeals. I. Members who signed both lists C…

New Delhi Hotels Ltd vs. ACIT

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/238/2013HC Delhi17 May 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…e tendered at trial as PW-17 would remain admissible. [Sital Singh v. Emperor, (1919) ILR 46 Cal 700; Banu Singh v. Emperor, (1906) ILR 33 Cal 1353; Laxmipat Choraria and Others v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 938; Chandran v. State of Kerala, (2011) 5 SCC 161; Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 1 SCC 10. This contention is, therefore, rejected. 478. While most appellants have restricted their challenge to this appeal through the common arguments advanced in preceding paragraphs, there are some unique facts with regard to certain individual appeals. I. Members who signed both lists C…

CIT vs. Manju Bansal

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/205/2013HC Delhi30 Apr 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…e tendered at trial as PW-17 would remain admissible. [Sital Singh v. Emperor, (1919) ILR 46 Cal 700; Banu Singh v. Emperor, (1906) ILR 33 Cal 1353; Laxmipat Choraria and Others v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 938; Chandran v. State of Kerala, (2011) 5 SCC 161; Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 1 SCC 10. This contention is, therefore, rejected. 478. While most appellants have restricted their challenge to this appeal through the common arguments advanced in preceding paragraphs, there are some unique facts with regard to certain individual appeals. I. Members who signed both lists C…

CIT vs. Nirmal Bansal

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/198/2013HC Delhi30 Apr 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…e tendered at trial as PW-17 would remain admissible. [Sital Singh v. Emperor, (1919) ILR 46 Cal 700; Banu Singh v. Emperor, (1906) ILR 33 Cal 1353; Laxmipat Choraria and Others v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 938; Chandran v. State of Kerala, (2011) 5 SCC 161; Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 1 SCC 10. This contention is, therefore, rejected. 478. While most appellants have restricted their challenge to this appeal through the common arguments advanced in preceding paragraphs, there are some unique facts with regard to certain individual appeals. I. Members who signed both lists C…

E.Micheal Raj v. Intelligence Officer, NCB (5 SCC 161) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax