M/s. M. Ramnarain Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State Trading Corpn. Of India Ltd.

3 SCC 75Reported decision1983#17580 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2022.

Judgments citing M/s. M. Ramnarain Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State Trading Corpn. Of India Ltd.

Smt. Asha Chhabra, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Bathinda

In the result, the ground no

ITA 695/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…her in the statement. The ld. AO reopened the assessment u/s 148 for escapement of income related to Rs.4 lac. The ld Counsel has mentioned in court that recorded reason is the “reason to suspect” but not “reasons to believe”, ITO v. LakhmaniMewal Das [1976] 3 SCC 75.With respectful observation of the apex court that the vague reason should not be accepted. But the reason recorded by the ld. AO is not factually incorrect. The recent judgment of Hon’ableSupreme Court of Indiain the case of Principal Director of Income-tax (Investigation) v. LaljibhaiKanjibhaiMandalia, [2022] 140 taxmann.com 282 (SC), the observ…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Pepsi Foods Ltd. (Now Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd.)

C.A. No.-001106-001106 - 2021Supreme Court06 Apr 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

Section 254

…REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1106 OF 2021 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.30284 OF 2015] DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. ..APPELLANTS VERSUS M/S. PEPSI FOODS LTD. ..RESPONDENT (NOW PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1125 OF 2021 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.32081 OF 2017] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1107 OF 2021 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.34987 OF 2015] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1108 OF 2021 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.31311 OF 2015] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1109 OF 2021 [ARISING OUT…

India Awake for Transparency vs. The Chairman

WP/12769/2020HC Karnataka26 Feb 2021

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad

Section 132Section 153A

…s abandoned the cause which would otherwise be available to him in law. 9. The learned counsel lastly urges that the reliance on the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1[3] of the Code of Civil 2 (1983) 3 SCC 75 3 (1970) 1 Supreme Court Cases 761 11 Procedure, 1908 [for short ‘the CPC’] to assert that the petitioner has unconditionally withdrawn the writ petition in W.P. No.3635/2020[PIL] and therefore, the petitioner is precluded from pursuing the present writ petition is not a sound submission. The expression “unconditional” in the orders of t…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

ITTA/227/2011HC Telangana27 Jun 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

M/S. Ambica Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

C.A. No.-002749-002749 - 2007Supreme Court18 May 2007

For Respondent: Commissioner of Central Excise

Section 35CSection 35GSection 35G(1)Section 35H

…n this Court opined that no distinction could legitimately been drawn between the right to sue and cause of action unless so indicated in the relevant statute. Yet again in M/s. M. Ramnarain Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State Trading Corpn. Of India Ltd. (1983) 3 SCC 75, a right to appeal was held to be carrying with it distinct cause of action stating :- "It is his submission that in considering the provisions of Order 23, Rule 1, the relevant fact to be borne in mind is the subject matter of the appeal and if the subject matter of the appeal be different, as in the present case it is the earlier appeal No.…