JT 2001(2) SC 642 and in BANK OF INDIA v. KETHAN PAREKH

Q: How many judgments cite JT 2001(2) SC 642 and in BANK OF INDIA v. KETHAN PAREKH?

45 judgments on BharatTax cite JT 2001(2) SC 642 and in BANK OF INDIA v. KETHAN PAREKH (8 SCC 148), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does JT 2001(2) SC 642 and in BANK OF INDIA v. KETHAN PAREKH come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 10A, Section 37, Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, Section 43(5), Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, Section 194J of the Income Tax Act.

8 SCC 148Reported decision2012#2580 most cited

What is JT 2001(2) SC 642 and in BANK OF INDIA v. KETHAN PAREKH authority for?

When two special acts conflict, the later act generally prevails, unless the dominant purpose of the earlier act is covered by the contingency in question, in which case the earlier act may prevail.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Solidaire India Limited vs Fairgrowth Financial Services · Bank of India vs Kethan Parekh · conflicting special acts · later act prevails · dominant purpose · overriding effect

Sections most often in play

Section 10A Section 37 Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act Section 43(5)Section 10A of the Income Tax Act Section 194J of the Income Tax Act Section 1961 - Section 143(2)Section 1961 - Section 250(4)

Issues it is cited on

stpi unit test of enduring benefit section 203 convertible foreign exchange software technology park section 10(2)section 39 speculative transaction scheme of arrangement demerger infrastructure facility section 194j

Judgments citing JT 2001(2) SC 642 and in BANK OF INDIA v. KETHAN PAREKH

Shri Kashinath Tapuriah, Kolkatta vs. Dy.CIT.C.C.2, Mumbai

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3820/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Karia &For Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &

Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…re evidence on record is sufficient to enable the court to pass an order, it may yet admit additional evidence for any other substantial cause. The ld. special counsel for the Revenue would rely on the decision in the case of in Ibrahiam Uddin and Anr. [2012] 8 SCC 148, specifically referring to para 41 (at page 168 thereof), to say that the power to admit additional evidence u/r. 29 ‘for any other substantial cause’ is to be read in context of the earlier words ‘requires… to enable it to pass orders’, and cannot be admitted where evidence on record enables the tribunal to pass an order. The argument raised by th…

Commissioner of Income Tax-VI vs. Sri K.Lakshmi Narasimha

Appeal stands allowed

ITTA/220/2007HC Telangana02 Mar 2016

Bench: The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Judgment Reserved On : 09.07.2025 Judgment Pronounded On : 25.07.2025 Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice R.Vijayakumar S.A.(Md)No.220 Of 2007 M.Sivakalai ....Appellant /1St Respondent/Plaintiff Vs 1.Chettige Estate A Partnership Firm Having Office At Chettige Village Gandahalli Post, Belur Taluk Hassan District Karnataka State Through Its Managing Partner T.Arunachalam 2.T.Arunachalam ...Respondents 1 & 2/Appellants /Defendants 1 & 2 3.T.Meenakshi Achi ...3Rd Respondent/2Nd Respondent /3Rd Defendant Prayer: Second Appeal Is Filed Under Section 100 Of C.P.C, To Set Aside The Judgment & Decree Passed In A.S.No.9 Of 2006 Dated 21.08.2006 On The File Of The Sub Court, Devakkottai Reversing The Judgment & Decree Passed In O.S.No.119 Of 2004 Dated 30.08.2005 On The File Of The Additional District Munsif, Karaikudi & To Decree The Said Suit Filed By The Appellant Herein With Costs By Allowing This Appeal With Costs Throughout & Thus Render Justice. 1/16 Https://Www.Mhc.Tn.Gov.In/Judis

Section 100

…S.A.(MD)No.220 of 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 09.07.2025 JUDGMENT PRONOUNDED ON : 25.07.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR S.A.(MD)No.220 of 2007 M.Sivakalai ....Appellant /1st Respondent/Plaintiff Vs 1.Chettige Estate A partnership firm Having office at Chettige Village Gandahalli Post, Belur Taluk Hassan District Karnataka State through its Managing Partner T.Arunachalam 2.T.Arunachalam ...Respondents 1 & 2/Appellants /Defendants 1 & 2 3.T.Meenakshi Achi ...3rd Respondent/2nd Respondent /3rd Defendant PRAYER: Second Appeal…

Hassan Ali Khan, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4156/MUM/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. No.

For Appellant: None (written submissions)For Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &

Section 153A

…2001-02 to 2007-08) Hassan Ali Khan vs. Dy. CIT case will be one for allowing additional evidence for any other substantial cause under Rule 27(1)(b) of the Code. This aspect was again emphasized recently by the Hon’ble Court in Ibrahiam Uddin and Anr. [2012] 8 SCC 148, wherein it was explained that the words ‘for any other substantial cause’ must be read with the word ‘requires’ in the beginning of the sentence, so that it is only where, for any other substantial cause, the appellate court requires additional evidence, that this rule shall apply, for example, when evidence had been taken by the lower courts so i…

Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs. Sri S.Venkat Reddy, (PAN ALAPS4009A)

ITTA/501/2013HC Telangana24 Oct 2013

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s. Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd

ITTA/392/2013HC Telangana05 Sept 2013