Harsha Dhingra v. State of Haryana

9 SCC 550Reported decision2001#18398 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2022.

Judgments citing Harsha Dhingra v. State of Haryana

Sh. S.L. Arora, Mohali vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 275/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Dec 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Section 142Section 153

…(1991 AIR SCW 730); Union of India v. A. K. Chatterjee (1993) 2 SCC 191 and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India v. Narendra Kumar Jam, (1993) 2 SCC 400.” Furthermore, explaining the principle, in the case of Harsha Dhingra v. State of Haryana (2001) 9 SCC 550, the Honourable Supreme Court has held: “Prospective declaration of law is a device innovated by this Court to avoid reopening of settled issues and to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. It is also a device adopted to avoid uncertainty and avoidable litigation. By the very object of prospective declaration of I.T.A. No.1325,1326,1421/CHANDI/2010…

Sh. Rajiv Kumar, Mohali vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 274/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Dec 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Section 142Section 153

…(1991 AIR SCW 730); Union of India v. A. K. Chatterjee (1993) 2 SCC 191 and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India v. Narendra Kumar Jam, (1993) 2 SCC 400.” Furthermore, explaining the principle, in the case of Harsha Dhingra v. State of Haryana (2001) 9 SCC 550, the Honourable Supreme Court has held: “Prospective declaration of law is a device innovated by this Court to avoid reopening of settled issues and to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. It is also a device adopted to avoid uncertainty and avoidable litigation. By the very object of prospective declaration of I.T.A. No.1325,1326,1421/CHANDI/2010…

DCIT, Chandigarh vs. Sh. S.L. Arora, Mohali

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 1421/CHANDI/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Dec 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Section 142Section 153

…(1991 AIR SCW 730); Union of India v. A. K. Chatterjee (1993) 2 SCC 191 and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India v. Narendra Kumar Jam, (1993) 2 SCC 400.” Furthermore, explaining the principle, in the case of Harsha Dhingra v. State of Haryana (2001) 9 SCC 550, the Honourable Supreme Court has held: “Prospective declaration of law is a device innovated by this Court to avoid reopening of settled issues and to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. It is also a device adopted to avoid uncertainty and avoidable litigation. By the very object of prospective declaration of I.T.A. No.1325,1326,1421/CHANDI/2010…

Sh.Sohan Lal Arora, Mohali vs. ACIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 1326/CHANDI/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Dec 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Section 142Section 153

…(1991 AIR SCW 730); Union of India v. A. K. Chatterjee (1993) 2 SCC 191 and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India v. Narendra Kumar Jam, (1993) 2 SCC 400.” Furthermore, explaining the principle, in the case of Harsha Dhingra v. State of Haryana (2001) 9 SCC 550, the Honourable Supreme Court has held: “Prospective declaration of law is a device innovated by this Court to avoid reopening of settled issues and to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. It is also a device adopted to avoid uncertainty and avoidable litigation. By the very object of prospective declaration of I.T.A. No.1325,1326,1421/CHANDI/2010…

Sh. Rajiv Kumar, Mohali vs. ACIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 1325/CHANDI/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Dec 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Section 142Section 153

…(1991 AIR SCW 730); Union of India v. A. K. Chatterjee (1993) 2 SCC 191 and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India v. Narendra Kumar Jam, (1993) 2 SCC 400.” Furthermore, explaining the principle, in the case of Harsha Dhingra v. State of Haryana (2001) 9 SCC 550, the Honourable Supreme Court has held: “Prospective declaration of law is a device innovated by this Court to avoid reopening of settled issues and to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. It is also a device adopted to avoid uncertainty and avoidable litigation. By the very object of prospective declaration of I.T.A. No.1325,1326,1421/CHANDI/2010…

Harsha Dhingra v. State of Haryana (9 SCC 550) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax