Om Kumar v. Union of India

2 SCC 386Reported decision2001#972 most cited
110

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Om Kumar v. Union of India · section 69C · unexplained expenditure · cash credits · assessment procedure · reassessment · section 143(3) · reasoned order · Income Tax Act · Supreme Court · 2001 SCC 386 · section 142(1)

Sections most often in play

Section 69CSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 115BBSection 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 69(c)section 2(9)reasoned ordersection 69creassessment proceedingssection 69section 142(1)section 144personcompanysection 14section 143(3)

Judgments citing Om Kumar v. Union of India

CONE CRAFT PAPER PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT-1, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed

ITA 3592/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

…ja Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia Bahadur v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 530, Amar Nath Om Parkash v. State of Punjab, AIR 1985 SC 218, Rajpur Ruda Meha v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1980 SC 1707, CIT v. Sun Engineering Works P. Limited Hume Pipe Co. Limited (1993) 2 SCC 386 and Makhija Construction and Enggr. Pvt. Limited v. Indore Development Authority, AIR 2005 SC 2499. 66. In Jawahar Lal Sazawal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 2002 SC 1187 their Lordships of the hon'ble Supreme Court held that a judgment may not be followed in a given case if it has some distinguishing features. 67. In Bhavnagar University v. Pa…

INCOME TAX OFFICER 7(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. PALMON IMPEX PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue are dismissed in above terms

ITA 2939/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanpalmon Impex Pvt. Ltd. Ito-7(3)(1), 9, Janata Indudstries Compound, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, 162, S. B. Marg, Lower Parel (W), Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400013 Pan: Aaecm3977F

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…ja Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia Bahadur v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 530, Amar Nath Om Parkash v. State of Punjab, AIR 1985 SC 218, Rajpur Ruda Meha v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1980 SC 1707, CIT v. Sun Engineering Works P. Limited Hume Pipe Co. Limited (1993) 2 SCC 386 and Makhija Construction and Enggr. Pvt. Limited v. Indore Development Authority, AIR 2005 SC 2499. 66. In Jawahar Lal Sazawal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 2002 SC 1187 their Lordships of the hon'ble Supreme Court held that a judgment may not be followed in a given case if it has some distinguishing features. ITA No. 2561/Mum/2026 & Palmon Im…

PALMON IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 7(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue are\ndismissed in above terms

ITA 2561/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2025AY 2011-12
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…adhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia\nBahadur v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 530, Amar Nath Om Parkash v. State\nof Punjab, AIR 1985 SC 218, Rajpur Ruda Meha v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1980\nSC 1707, CIT v. Sun Engineering Works P. Limited Hume Pipe Co. Limited\n(1993) 2 SCC 386 and Makhija Construction and Enggr. Pvt. Limited v. Indore\nDevelopment Authority, AIR 2005 SC 2499.\n66. In Jawahar Lal Sazawal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR\n2002 SC 1187 their Lordships of the hon'ble Supreme Court held that\na judgment may not be followed in a given case if it has some\ndistinguishing features.\n67. In Bhavnagar University…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1,BHUBANESWAR vs. BOUDH CO OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD.,BOUDH

ITA/104/2018HC Orissa06 Apr 2022

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar Rev.Pet Family Court No. 104 Of 2018 C/W Rev.Pet Family Court No. 134 Of 2017 Rev.Pet Family Court No. 131 Of 2019

Section 125Section 19Section 19(4)Section 9

…- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:14466 RPFC No. 104 of 2018 C/W RPFC No. 134 of 2017 RPFC No. 131 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 104 OF 2018 C/W REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 134 OF 2017 REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 131 OF 2019 IN RPFC NO. 104/2018 BETWEEN: SMT. S.R. ASHWINI W/O. G HARISH, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, D/O. NETRA, R/O. CHOWDESHWARI COLONY, NEAR RAILWAY GATE,. ROAD LEADS TO HONNALI, SHIMOGA CITY - 577 201 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASAD B S, ADVOCATE) AND:…

SRI. SHIVALINGAIAH vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/52084/2019HC Karnataka04 Aug 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

…Article 14 is concerned, the courts in India have always examined whether the classification was based on intelligible differentia and whether the differentia had a reasonable nexus with the object of legislation. (See Om Kumar v. Union of India [(2001) 2 SCC 386] .) 22. Applying the said tests to the impugned levy, we find that the levy is irrational, arbitrary, discriminatory and beyond Section 183(5) of the said 1980 Act. (Emphasis applied) The Apex Court here again elaborately considers the distinction between a fee and a tax and holds that fee can be charged only for services tha…

SAPTHAGIRI BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/15/2019HC Karnataka04 Aug 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

…Article 14 is concerned, the courts in India have always examined whether the classification was based on intelligible differentia and whether the differentia had a reasonable nexus with the object of legislation. (See Om Kumar v. Union of India [(2001) 2 SCC 386] .) 22. Applying the said tests to the impugned levy, we find that the levy is irrational, arbitrary, discriminatory and beyond Section 183(5) of the said 1980 Act. (Emphasis applied) The Apex Court here again elaborately considers the distinction between a fee and a tax and holds that fee can be charged only for services tha…

SRI. AL MUTHAIAH vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/17048/2018HC Karnataka04 Aug 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

…Article 14 is concerned, the courts in India have always examined whether the classification was based on intelligible differentia and whether the differentia had a reasonable nexus with the object of legislation. (See Om Kumar v. Union of India [(2001) 2 SCC 386] .) 22. Applying the said tests to the impugned levy, we find that the levy is irrational, arbitrary, discriminatory and beyond Section 183(5) of the said 1980 Act. (Emphasis applied) The Apex Court here again elaborately considers the distinction between a fee and a tax and holds that fee can be charged only for services tha…

M/S FOUNTAIN REAL ESTATES AND DEVELOPERS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/24906/2019HC Karnataka04 Aug 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

…Article 14 is concerned, the courts in India have always examined whether the classification was based on intelligible differentia and whether the differentia had a reasonable nexus with the object of legislation. (See Om Kumar v. Union of India [(2001) 2 SCC 386] .) 22. Applying the said tests to the impugned levy, we find that the levy is irrational, arbitrary, discriminatory and beyond Section 183(5) of the said 1980 Act. (Emphasis applied) The Apex Court here again elaborately considers the distinction between a fee and a tax and holds that fee can be charged only for services tha…

M/S ESTEEM ICON vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/9581/2018HC Karnataka04 Aug 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

…Article 14 is concerned, the courts in India have always examined whether the classification was based on intelligible differentia and whether the differentia had a reasonable nexus with the object of legislation. (See Om Kumar v. Union of India [(2001) 2 SCC 386] .) 22. Applying the said tests to the impugned levy, we find that the levy is irrational, arbitrary, discriminatory and beyond Section 183(5) of the said 1980 Act. (Emphasis applied) The Apex Court here again elaborately considers the distinction between a fee and a tax and holds that fee can be charged only for services tha…

OMAR FAROOK vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/41409/2018HC Karnataka04 Aug 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

…Article 14 is concerned, the courts in India have always examined whether the classification was based on intelligible differentia and whether the differentia had a reasonable nexus with the object of legislation. (See Om Kumar v. Union of India [(2001) 2 SCC 386] .) 22. Applying the said tests to the impugned levy, we find that the levy is irrational, arbitrary, discriminatory and beyond Section 183(5) of the said 1980 Act. (Emphasis applied) The Apex Court here again elaborately considers the distinction between a fee and a tax and holds that fee can be charged only for services tha…

M/S SOBHA LIMITED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/13495/2019HC Karnataka04 Aug 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

…Article 14 is concerned, the courts in India have always examined whether the classification was based on intelligible differentia and whether the differentia had a reasonable nexus with the object of legislation. (See Om Kumar v. Union of India [(2001) 2 SCC 386] .) 22. Applying the said tests to the impugned levy, we find that the levy is irrational, arbitrary, discriminatory and beyond Section 183(5) of the said 1980 Act. (Emphasis applied) The Apex Court here again elaborately considers the distinction between a fee and a tax and holds that fee can be charged only for services tha…

TRANQUIL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/8984/2020HC Karnataka04 Aug 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

…Article 14 is concerned, the courts in India have always examined whether the classification was based on intelligible differentia and whether the differentia had a reasonable nexus with the object of legislation. (See Om Kumar v. Union of India [(2001) 2 SCC 386] .) 22. Applying the said tests to the impugned levy, we find that the levy is irrational, arbitrary, discriminatory and beyond Section 183(5) of the said 1980 Act. (Emphasis applied) The Apex Court here again elaborately considers the distinction between a fee and a tax and holds that fee can be charged only for services tha…

M/S SOBHA HIGHRISE VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/28990/2019HC Karnataka04 Aug 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

…Article 14 is concerned, the courts in India have always examined whether the classification was based on intelligible differentia and whether the differentia had a reasonable nexus with the object of legislation. (See Om Kumar v. Union of India [(2001) 2 SCC 386] .) 22. Applying the said tests to the impugned levy, we find that the levy is irrational, arbitrary, discriminatory and beyond Section 183(5) of the said 1980 Act. (Emphasis applied) The Apex Court here again elaborately considers the distinction between a fee and a tax and holds that fee can be charged only for services tha…

PURAVANKARA LIMITED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/57893/2018HC Karnataka04 Aug 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

…Article 14 is concerned, the courts in India have always examined whether the classification was based on intelligible differentia and whether the differentia had a reasonable nexus with the object of legislation. (See Om Kumar v. Union of India [(2001) 2 SCC 386] .) 22. Applying the said tests to the impugned levy, we find that the levy is irrational, arbitrary, discriminatory and beyond Section 183(5) of the said 1980 Act. (Emphasis applied) The Apex Court here again elaborately considers the distinction between a fee and a tax and holds that fee can be charged only for services tha…

SRI R SHANKARAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/17262/2018HC Karnataka04 Aug 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

…Article 14 is concerned, the courts in India have always examined whether the classification was based on intelligible differentia and whether the differentia had a reasonable nexus with the object of legislation. (See Om Kumar v. Union of India [(2001) 2 SCC 386] .) 22. Applying the said tests to the impugned levy, we find that the levy is irrational, arbitrary, discriminatory and beyond Section 183(5) of the said 1980 Act. (Emphasis applied) The Apex Court here again elaborately considers the distinction between a fee and a tax and holds that fee can be charged only for services tha…

M/S.SOBHA LIMITED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/55945/2015HC Karnataka04 Aug 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

…Article 14 is concerned, the courts in India have always examined whether the classification was based on intelligible differentia and whether the differentia had a reasonable nexus with the object of legislation. (See Om Kumar v. Union of India [(2001) 2 SCC 386] .) 22. Applying the said tests to the impugned levy, we find that the levy is irrational, arbitrary, discriminatory and beyond Section 183(5) of the said 1980 Act. (Emphasis applied) The Apex Court here again elaborately considers the distinction between a fee and a tax and holds that fee can be charged only for services tha…

SOBHA LIMITED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/10164/2016HC Karnataka04 Aug 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

…Article 14 is concerned, the courts in India have always examined whether the classification was based on intelligible differentia and whether the differentia had a reasonable nexus with the object of legislation. (See Om Kumar v. Union of India [(2001) 2 SCC 386] .) 22. Applying the said tests to the impugned levy, we find that the levy is irrational, arbitrary, discriminatory and beyond Section 183(5) of the said 1980 Act. (Emphasis applied) The Apex Court here again elaborately considers the distinction between a fee and a tax and holds that fee can be charged only for services tha…

M/S BHARTIYA CITY DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/7538/2016HC Karnataka04 Aug 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

…Article 14 is concerned, the courts in India have always examined whether the classification was based on intelligible differentia and whether the differentia had a reasonable nexus with the object of legislation. (See Om Kumar v. Union of India [(2001) 2 SCC 386] .) 22. Applying the said tests to the impugned levy, we find that the levy is irrational, arbitrary, discriminatory and beyond Section 183(5) of the said 1980 Act. (Emphasis applied) The Apex Court here again elaborately considers the distinction between a fee and a tax and holds that fee can be charged only for services tha…

SRI KRISHANAMA RAJU vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/59/2019HC Karnataka04 Aug 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

…Article 14 is concerned, the courts in India have always examined whether the classification was based on intelligible differentia and whether the differentia had a reasonable nexus with the object of legislation. (See Om Kumar v. Union of India [(2001) 2 SCC 386] .) 22. Applying the said tests to the impugned levy, we find that the levy is irrational, arbitrary, discriminatory and beyond Section 183(5) of the said 1980 Act. (Emphasis applied) The Apex Court here again elaborately considers the distinction between a fee and a tax and holds that fee can be charged only for services tha…

SRI M MUNISWAMY vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/30168/2019HC Karnataka04 Aug 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

…Article 14 is concerned, the courts in India have always examined whether the classification was based on intelligible differentia and whether the differentia had a reasonable nexus with the object of legislation. (See Om Kumar v. Union of India [(2001) 2 SCC 386] .) 22. Applying the said tests to the impugned levy, we find that the levy is irrational, arbitrary, discriminatory and beyond Section 183(5) of the said 1980 Act. (Emphasis applied) The Apex Court here again elaborately considers the distinction between a fee and a tax and holds that fee can be charged only for services tha…

Showing 1–20 of 110 · Page 1 of 6

Om Kumar v. Union of India (2 SCC 386) — Cited in 110 Judgments | BharatTax