M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa

2 SCC 627Reported decision1969#19719 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2002 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 253Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 5Section 54F

Judgments citing M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa

Krunal Sanghvi, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1285/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Chintan Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 253Section 270A(9)Section 5

…td. (1974) 2 SCC 389, the Supreme Court stated that justice must be done ITA No.1285/Ahd/2025 [Krunal Sanghvi vs. ITO] A.Y. 2018-19 - 3 – on merits rather than be denied on technicalities such as limitation. In Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1969) 2 SCC 627, the Hon'ble Court recognized that procedural delays should not override the right to be heard, especially when there is no malafide intention. 5. That the appellant, therefore, prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits in the interest of justice.” 3. The Ld. DR, however, objected…

Sri Chituri Durga Rao vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/41507/2017HC Karnataka13 Dec 2017

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice G. Narendar Writ Petition No.41506/2017 (Apmc) C/W Writ Petition No.41507/2017 (Apmc)

Section 17

…reliance on the following rulings to emphasize the distinction between the procedures pertaining to disqualification and the process of an election petition. The rulings are ;- ♦ (2014) 7 SCC 99, ♦ (2008) 17 SCC 311, ♦ AIR 1957 SC 871 and ♦ (1999) 2 SCC 627. Though the point of fraud was strenuously canvassed by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents, the said issue is not addressed by this Court, in view of this Court dismissing the writ petitions on the points of law. 132 In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and in the light of the…

Nirmala Bagodi vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/41506/2017HC Karnataka13 Dec 2017

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice G. Narendar Writ Petition No.41506/2017 (Apmc) C/W Writ Petition No.41507/2017 (Apmc)

Section 17

…reliance on the following rulings to emphasize the distinction between the procedures pertaining to disqualification and the process of an election petition. The rulings are ;- ♦ (2014) 7 SCC 99, ♦ (2008) 17 SCC 311, ♦ AIR 1957 SC 871 and ♦ (1999) 2 SCC 627. Though the point of fraud was strenuously canvassed by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents, the said issue is not addressed by this Court, in view of this Court dismissing the writ petitions on the points of law. 132 In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and in the light of the…

Hemalatha Gargya vs. Commnr. of Income Tax, A.P

C.A. No.-006266-006266 - 2000Supreme Court28 Nov 2002
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Section 64Section 65Section 66Section 67Section 67(1)

…ertheless, the Court could under certain circumstances dilute the severity of its operation, provided the assessees were acting bona fide. Reference has been made to the decision of this Court in M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa reported in [1969] 2 SCC 627 in this context. The assessees have also argued that the first decision in the field was the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 238 ITR 51 Laxmi Mittal case (supra) where the High Court had held that the period fixed under Sec. 67(1) was not immutable and that for sufficient reason the time could be extended. The Department had not ch…

M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (2 SCC 627) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax