H.H. Maharaja Vibhuti Narayan Singh v. State of U.P

65 ITR 364Supreme Court of India1967#21319 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2024.

Judgments citing H.H. Maharaja Vibhuti Narayan Singh v. State of U.P

HIMALAYA FOOD INTERNATIONAL LTD. vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -04

ITA/14/2019HC Delhi28 Feb 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 263

…A) of the Act in the year 2008. Similar is the judgment in the case of CIT, Chennai v. K. N. Pannerselvam, (2016) 75 taxmann.com 98 (Madras). The judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in H. H. Maharaja Vibhuti Narayan Singh v. State of U.P., (1967) 65 ITR 364, was considered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Soundarya Nursery (supra) at para 6 of the judgment. The Court held that the observation of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court was clearly an obiter. This judgment in the case of Soundarya Nursery (supra) required basic objections to be performed on land for the income to b…

DCIT , CHENNAI vs. M/S BRITISH AGRO PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT LTD , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is dismissed

ITA 970/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkery, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 969 & 970/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. British Agro Products Income Tax, V. (India) Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle -1(1), No. 9, State Bank Officers Chennai – 600 034. Colony, Shastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [Pan: Aafcb-8238-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. M. Rajan, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCA
Section 2

…n 2(1A) of the Act in the year 2008. Similar is the judgement in the case of CIT, Chennai vs. K.N. Pannerselvam (2016) 75 taxmann.com 98 (Madras). The judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in H.H. Maharaja Vibhuti Narayan Singh vs. State of U.P. (1967) 65 ITR 364, was considered by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Soundarya Nursery (supra) at para 6 of the judgment. The Court held that the observation of the Hon’ble AllahabadHigh Court was clearly an obiter. This judgment in the case of Soundarya Nursery (supra) required basic objections to be performed on land for the income to be exempt as ag…

DCIT , CHENNAI vs. M/S BRITISH AGRO PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT LTD , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is dismissed

ITA 969/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkery, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 969 & 970/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. British Agro Products Income Tax, V. (India) Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle -1(1), No. 9, State Bank Officers Chennai – 600 034. Colony, Shastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [Pan: Aafcb-8238-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. M. Rajan, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCA
Section 2

…n 2(1A) of the Act in the year 2008. Similar is the judgement in the case of CIT, Chennai vs. K.N. Pannerselvam (2016) 75 taxmann.com 98 (Madras). The judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in H.H. Maharaja Vibhuti Narayan Singh vs. State of U.P. (1967) 65 ITR 364, was considered by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Soundarya Nursery (supra) at para 6 of the judgment. The Court held that the observation of the Hon’ble AllahabadHigh Court was clearly an obiter. This judgment in the case of Soundarya Nursery (supra) required basic objections to be performed on land for the income to be exempt as ag…

VIKAS GLOBALONE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2498/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Piyush KamalFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 115JSection 37Section 80I

…) Ltd., vs. CIT (2018) 96 taxmann.com 493 (Delhi-Tribunal). (ii) CIT vs. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (1957) 32 ITR 466 (SC). (iii) Bhairavnath Agrofin (P.) Ltd., vs. CIT 354 ITR 276 (Raj.) (iv) H.M. Maharaja Vibhuti Narain Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 65 ITR 364 (SC). 19. Learned Counsel for the Assessee in the rejoinder submitted that the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as relied by the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. D.R. are distinguishable on the facts of the present case. 20. We have considered the rival submissions. The assessee explained that it has acquired agricultural land in the year 2001 and t…

H.H. Maharaja Vibhuti Narayan Singh v. State of U.P (65 ITR 364) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax