India in Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak

9 SCC 632Reported decision2008#25994 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing India in Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 vs. INTERNATIONAL CARS & MOTORS LTD

ITA/643/2019HC Delhi10 Dec 2019

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 125

…not in accordance with the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr., (2021) 2 SCC 324, wherein it was held as under: "110. In Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak [Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak, (2008) 9 SCC 632 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 839] , this Court held that the entitlement of maintenance should not be left to the uncertain date of disposal of the case. The enormous delay in disposal of proceedings justifies the award of maintenance from the date of application. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena [Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353 : (2015) 3…

The Commissioner of Income tax-Iv, vs. PES Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,

Accordingly, the petition is allowed

ITTA/586/2016HC Telangana28 Nov 2016

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

Section 125Section 127

…ce for years on end. It would therefore be in the interests of justice and fair play that maintenance is awarded from the date of the application. 110. In Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak [Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak, (2008) 9 SCC 632 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 839] , this Court held that the entitlement of maintenance should not be left to the uncertain date of disposal of the case. The enormous delay in disposal of proceedings justifies the award of maintenance from the date of application. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena [Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353 : (2015)…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4 vs. GRAN OVERSEAS LTD.

ITA/42/2016HC Delhi22 Jan 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 125

…date of the application then there have to be compelling circumstances for the trial court to restrict the award of maintenance to a period post the date of the order. 16. The Supreme Court of India in Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak (2008) 9 SCC 632 held that “the High Court was not right in holding that as a normal rule, the Magistrate should grant maintenance only from the date of the order and not from the date of the application for maintenance. And if he intends to pass such an order, he is required to record reasons in support of such order 17. Further, in Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vya…