Further, in State of Punjab v. Shyamalal Murari & Sons.

1 SCC 719Reported decision1976#4265 most cited

What is Further, in State of Punjab v. Shyamalal Murari & Sons. authority for?

Procedural rules should serve justice and not obstruct it. Technicalities should not prevent a decision on the merits of a case.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

State of Punjab v. Shyamalal Murari & Sons · 1976 · procedural rules · handmaid of justice · mistress of legal justice · cause of justice · substantial justice · technicalities · merits

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 139(1)Section 69Section 115BBESection 144Section 144BSection 270A

Issues it is cited on

section 11bsection 2(24)(xviii)section 2(45)section 10(23c)(iiiab)convertible foreign exchangesection 158bb(1)section 153a proceedingssection 158bbpenalty under section 270asection 271(l)(c)section 271aac(1)panchnama

Judgments citing Further, in State of Punjab v. Shyamalal Murari & Sons.

DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi vs. Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 5237/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

…not be the handmaid and not the mistress of legal justice and cause of justice should not be subservient to the rules of procedure and placed reliance on the following judgments: a) Kailash v. Nankhu [2005] 4 SCC 480; State of Punjab v. ShamlalMurari [1976] 1 SCC 719 b) Sushil Kumar Sen v. State of Bihar, (1975) 1 SCC 774 are pertinent: (SCC p. 777, paras 5-6 c) State of Punjab v. ShamlalMurari, (1976) 1 SCC 719 d) GhanshyamDass v. Dominion of India, (1984) 3 SCC 46, e) SardarAmarjit Singh Kalra v. Pramod Gupta, [2003] 3 SCC 272. 54. The AR further submitted that if this matter is decided on mere technicalities…

Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 4736/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

…not be the handmaid and not the mistress of legal justice and cause of justice should not be subservient to the rules of procedure and placed reliance on the following judgments: a) Kailash v. Nankhu [2005] 4 SCC 480; State of Punjab v. ShamlalMurari [1976] 1 SCC 719 b) Sushil Kumar Sen v. State of Bihar, (1975) 1 SCC 774 are pertinent: (SCC p. 777, paras 5-6 c) State of Punjab v. ShamlalMurari, (1976) 1 SCC 719 d) GhanshyamDass v. Dominion of India, (1984) 3 SCC 46, e) SardarAmarjit Singh Kalra v. Pramod Gupta, [2003] 3 SCC 272. 54. The AR further submitted that if this matter is decided on mere technicalities…

ACIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi vs. Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5677/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 4Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 5169/DEL/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s Anant Raj Limited, v. ACIT, E-2, ARA Centre, Range-2, Jhandewalan Extension, Circle-2(2), New Delhi-110055 New Delhi TAN/PAN: AABCA3927B (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 5677/DEL/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 ACIT, v. M/s Anant Raj Limited, Range-2, E-2, ARA Centre, Circle-2(2), Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi New Delhi-110055 TAN/PAN: AABCA3927B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri V.K. Bindal, CA, Ms. Swee…

Anant Raj Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Range-2, Circle-2(2), New Delhi

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5169/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 4Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 5169/DEL/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s Anant Raj Limited, v. ACIT, E-2, ARA Centre, Range-2, Jhandewalan Extension, Circle-2(2), New Delhi-110055 New Delhi TAN/PAN: AABCA3927B (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 5677/DEL/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 ACIT, v. M/s Anant Raj Limited, Range-2, E-2, ARA Centre, Circle-2(2), Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi New Delhi-110055 TAN/PAN: AABCA3927B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri V.K. Bindal, CA, Ms. Swee…

M/S Dalmia Power Ltd vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-009496-009499 - 2019Supreme Court18 Dec 2019

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA

Section 139Section 139(5)

…be the handmaiden of justice.4 The purpose of assessment proceedings is to assess the tax liability of an assessee correctly in accordance with law.5 4 Kailash v Nankhu (2005) 4 SCC 480; State of Punjab v Shamlal Murari (1976) 1 SCC 719 5 National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1997) 7 SCC 489 25 10. Section 170(1) of the Income Tax Act, provides that the successor of an assessee shall be assessed in respect of the income of the previous year after the date of succession. S.170(1) of the Income Tax Act provides as under:…

Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/7/2006HC Delhi08 Feb 2012
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…ITA Nos. 7/2006 + connected matters Page 1 of 32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL NOS. 7/2006, 2/2006, 3/2006, 4,2006, 5/2006, 8/2006, 10/2006, 11/2006, 17/2006 & 22/2006 Reserved on: 28th November, 2011 % Date of Decision: 8th February, 2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ...Appellant Through Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Amit Srivastava, Advocate. VERSUS M/S JAGAT NOVEL EXHIBITORS PRIVATE LIMITED…

Venad Properties Private Limited

ITA/1525/2010HC Delhi11 Nov 2011
Section 127Section 132Section 144Section 158Section 158BSection 260A

…ITA No. 1525/2010 Page 1 of 25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1525 OF 2010 Reserved on : 18th October, 2011. % Date of Decision : 11th November, 2011. VENAD PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED .... Appellant Through Mr. C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX …..Respondent Thro…