Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P

1 SCC 691Reported decision2001#14613 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2003 to 2016.

Judgments citing Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P

The Director of Income Tax-(Exemptions) vs. Vasavi Academy of Education

ITTA/601/2016HC Telangana29 Nov 2016

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

Section 109Section 13Section 13(2)Section 401

…the accused is guilty, there is no ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence and the charge must be considered as groundless. [Ref:-A.R.Saravanan –V- State; 2003 Criminal Law Journal 1140, State of M.P. -V- Awadh Kishore Gupta; (2004) 1 SCC 691, State of Delhi –V- Gyan Devi; (2000) 8 SCC 239.] In the case of Amit Kapoor –V- Ramesh Chander; (2012) 9 SCC 460 and several others, the Hon‟ble Apex Court, upon objective analysis of various judgment of the court, has culled out the principles to be considered for exercise of jurisdiction particularly with regard to framing of charge ei…

Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Multiplex Capital Ltd

ITA/612/2016HC Delhi19 Aug 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

…of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process, the Court shall have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct etc. in relation to the facts of the case. 64.18. In M. Narsinga Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2001) 1 SCC 691, the Supreme Court held that presumption is an inference of a certain fact drawn from other proved facts. While inferring the existence of a fact from another, the Court is only applying a process of intelligent reasoning which the mind of a prudent man would do under similar circumstances. Presumption is not the final conclusion to be drawn…

Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central II) vs. P.D Associates (P). (Ltd)

The appeals are allowed

ITA/630/2015HC Delhi24 Aug 2015

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

Section 120BSection 374Section 7

…ion case. In P. Satyanarayana Murthy [P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P., (2015) 10 SCC 152 :(2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 11] , the complainant had died prior to letting in his evidence in the case. In M. Narsinga Rao [M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P., (2001) 1 SCC 691 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 258], the question was whether a legal presumption could be based on a factual presumption. In Hazari Lal [Hazari Lal v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1980) 2 SCC 390 :1980 SCC (Cri) 458] , this Court through O. Chinnappa Reddy, J. observed that it is not necessary that the passing of money should be proved by direct evidence, it co…

The Commissioner of Incometax vs. M/S V.Satayanarayana

ITTA/193/2003HC Telangana21 Jun 2011

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

Commissioner of Income Tax-i vs. Agricultural Market Committee

ITTA/43/2011HC Telangana30 Mar 2011

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

M/S. Amco Batteries Ltd., Bangalore vs. Commnr. of Central Excise, Bangalore

In the result, Section 33-B of the Amended Act is held to be

C.A. No.-005941-005942 - 1999Supreme Court26 Feb 2003
For Respondent: Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore
Section 3

…ndidate or his election agent for the purpose of sub-section (1) of Section 77 read with Rule 90. Learned counsel further referred to the decisions in Jyoti Basu http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 49 of 55 & ors. v. Debi Ghosal & ors. [(1982) 1 SCC 691] wherein similar observations are made by this Court while deciding election petition: "8. A right to elect, fundamental though it is to democracy, is, anomalously enough, neither a fundamental right nor a Common Law Right. It is pure and simple, a statutory right. So is the right to be elected. So is the right to dispute an election. Outsid…