India v. A. K. Chatterjee (1993) 2 SCC 191 and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India v. Narendra Kumar Jam

2 SCC 400Reported decision1993#15206 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2023.

Judgments citing India v. A. K. Chatterjee (1993) 2 SCC 191 and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India v. Narendra Kumar Jam

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 vs. M/S Bharat Hotels Ltd

ITA/263/2023HC Delhi08 May 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

For Appellant: Mr. Rahul Malhotra, Mr.Siddharth SinghFor Respondent: Mr. Vaibhav Agnihotri, ASCwith Mr. Vidit
Section 37(1)(c)

…lopment Authority (2005) 85 DRJ 476 e) Ircon International Limited v. GPT- Rahee JV (2022) 290 DLT 59 f) State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Constructions in Arbitration Petition No. 245 of 2002 Bombay High Court g) R.L. Kalathia and Co. v. State of Gujarat (2011) 2 SCC 400 h) Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure v. Sukumar Chand Jain (2023) DHC 000339 i) Inder Singh Rekhi v. Delhi Development Authority (1988)2 SCC 338 23. In the present appeal, though oral arguments were advanced by the counsel for the respondent in support of their case, however, no written pleadings were filed. 24. Contesting these submissions…

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

…ollowed by various Benches of this Court, viz., S. P. Viswanathan v. Union of India, (1991) Supp 2 SCC 269 : (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…

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

…ollowed by various Benches of this Court, viz., S. P. Viswanathan v. Union of India, (1991) Supp 2 SCC 269 : (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…

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

…ollowed by various Benches of this Court, viz., S. P. Viswanathan v. Union of India, (1991) Supp 2 SCC 269 : (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…

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

…ollowed by various Benches of this Court, viz., S. P. Viswanathan v. Union of India, (1991) Supp 2 SCC 269 : (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…

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

…ollowed by various Benches of this Court, viz., S. P. Viswanathan v. Union of India, (1991) Supp 2 SCC 269 : (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…

India v. A. K. Chatterjee (1993) 2 SCC 191 and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India v. Narendra Kumar Jam (2 SCC 400) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax