G. Pankajakshi Amma v. Mathai Mathew

12 SCC 83Reported decision2004#18910 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2020.

Judgments citing G. Pankajakshi Amma v. Mathai Mathew

M/S SURETEX PROPHYLACTICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

Appeal is allowed

CEA/32/2017HC Karnataka05 May 2020

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,E.S.INDIRESH

Section 96

…t can come to the aid of the party in an illegal transactions. It is settled law that in such cases the loss must be allowed to lie where it falls. In this case as these are unaccounted 4 (2004) 12 SCC 83 R.F.A No.32/2017 16 transactions, the Court could not have lent its hands and passed a decree. For these reasons also the suit was required to be dismissed.” (Emphasis supplied) 2…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)- 2 vs. SH. SANDEEP BINDRA

ITA/637/2019HC Delhi21 Oct 2019

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

For Respondent: Mr.Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the

Section 114Section 139Section 269

…lainant/ appellant for failing to produce any documents to prove the source of the loan of ₹ 9,00,000/- to Respondent No. 2. The learned MM placed reliance on the judgements passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in G. Pankajakshi Amma v. Mathai Mathew : (2004) 12 SCC 83 and Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa : (2019) 5 SCC 418, wherein it was held that it is imperative for the complainant to explain his financial capacity in cash transactions, and that a court cannot aid a party engaged in an illegal transaction. It was noted that in terms of Section 269 SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a loan more than ₹ 20,000/- c…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 7 vs. M/S RAINBOW POWDER COATERS PVT. LTD.

ITA/30/2018HC Delhi12 Jan 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 151Section 96

…tration of Money Lenders Act, 1938; (v) that the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder had not shown the source of his income with respect to the loan claimed to be advanced of Rs.14.70 lacs; reliance is placed on G. Pankajakshi Amma Vs. Mathai Mathew (2004) 12 SCC 83; (vi) that the cheques having been given as security for chit amount received, the suits were liable to be dismissed in terms of M.S. Narayana Menon Vs. State of Kerala (2006) 6 SCC 39; (vii) that the suit, subject matter of RFA No.474/2017 was barred by Order II Rule 2 of the CPC owing to the earlier suit subject matter of RSA No.30/2018 bei…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL)- 1 vs. DEVENDER KUMAR AGGARWAL

ITA/231/2017HC Delhi11 Apr 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 138Section 251Section 313

…e power of attorney holder has nowhere stated as to any payment in instalments in his complaint or his cross-examination. The source of the cash has not been adequately explained by the petitioner. 9. The Supreme Court in the decision reported as (2004) 12 SCC 83 G. Pankajakshi Amma v. Mathai Mathew observed: 10. There is any reason also why the impugned judgment cannot be upheld. According to the 1st respondent these transactions were to be unaccounted transactions. According to the 1st respondent, all these amounts are paid in cash. If these are unaccounted transactions then they are illegal transa…