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 366,339 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

Sipani Properties Pvt Ltd vs. State of Karnataka

WP/23888/2019HC 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…

Smt. Vimalamma vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/27756/2019HC 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 Shubhachandi Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/29271/2019HC 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 R.K. Suraksha Properties vs. State of Karnataka

WP/7949/2020HC 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…

Mr Raja Jayashankar vs. State of Karnataka

WP/7895/2020HC 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…

Sri B H Narayanaswamy vs. State of Karnataka

WP/4595/2020HC 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…

Sadupadesha Vidyalaya vs. State of Karnataka

WP/6381/2018HC 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 Sathya Sai Health and Education Trust vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/11163/2020HC 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…

Dr M Ravindra Varma vs. State of Karnataka

WP/8540/2020HC 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…

Smt. H G Sheela vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/12535/2016HC 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 C Thimma Reddy vs. State of Karnataka

WP/34265/2018HC 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 Nandi Housing Pvt Ltd vs. State of Karnataka

WP/11063/2019HC 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 Rmz Azure Projects Pvt. Ltd vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/14266/2019HC 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. Shyamaraju & Company (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/41698/2019HC 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. Vijayaraghava Reddy vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/52417/2018HC 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 Sjr Prime Spectrum Pvt Ltd vs. State of Karnataka

WP/19335/2019HC 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…

Mr H R Chandrashekhar vs. State of Karnataka

WP/38743/2017HC 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 Vasthu Properties vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/17350/2018HC 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…

H. T. Mohandas vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/12576/2020HC 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 Cornerstone Bay East Developers Pvt Ltd vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/30867/2018HC 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…