Ors. v. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Anr.

9 SCC 352Reported decision2009#11836 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 120(4)(b)Section 124(3)Section 127Section 143(3)Section 2(7A)Section 253

Judgments citing Ors. v. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Anr.

Addl CIT R G 7(1), Mumbai vs. Novartis India Ltd ( Formerly Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd. ), Mumbai

ITA 6772/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

…decisions: (i) State of Punjab vs. Bhatinda Dist. Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. (2007) 11 SCC 363 (ii) State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha and others AIR 1960 SCC 1297 (iii) Santosh Kumar Shivgonda Patil & Ors vs. Balasaheb Tukarams hevale (2009) 9 SCC 352 (iv) CIT vs. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (2008) 305 ITR 137 (Del) (v) CIT vs. Hutchison Telecom Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 320 (Del). 5.3 Although no time limit is prescribed for filing additional ground, it does not mean that it can be filed after any lapse of time in a reckless manner. Even when no time limit is provided for filing additional gro…

Principal Commnr. of Income Tax, Sambalpur vs. Binay Kumar Jindal, HUF

ITA/7/2023HC Orissa02 Mar 2023

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

N Raghavendra Murthy vs. State of Karnataka

WP/22658/2015HC Karnataka19 Jun 2020

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav

…it prescribed for exercise of such power under the law and when such power was sought to be exercised after 17 years, it was held as follows:- 32 Annexure-M in W.P.No.25663-25673/2015 33 (2009) 9 SCC 352. 144 “11. It seems to be fairly settled that if a statute does not prescribe the time-limit for exercise of revisional power, it does not mean that such power can be exercised at any time; rather it should be exercised within a reasonable time. It is so because the law does not expect a settled thing to be unsettled after a long laps…

Win Cable & Datacom P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (TDS) 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 3635/MUM/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: S/Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm) I.T.A. No. 3635/Mum/2016(Assessment Year 2001-02)

Section 191Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

…he reasonable period would depend upon the nature of the statute, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant factors.” 28 Then, again in the case of Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil and others v/s Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and others reported in (2009) 9 SCC 352, the Honourable Supreme Court followed the ratio in the judgments of Patel Raghav Natha (supra) and the State of Punjab v/s Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers' Union (supra) and reiterated the principle as referred above. 29 The same view appears to have been taken earlier also in the case of the Government of India v/s Citadel Fine Pharm…

M/S. Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cir2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3745/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri P C Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…cisions: • State of Punjab vs. Bhatinda District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. (2007) 11 SCC 363 • State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha and others AIR 1960 SCC 1297 • SantoshKumar Shivgonda patil & Ors vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Anr. (2009) 9 SCC 352 • CIT vs. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (2008) 305 ITR 137 (Del) • CIT vs. Hutchison Telecom Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 320 (Del) Thus, it was submitted by the learned DR that if no time limit is prescribed for filing additional ground, it does not mean that it can be filed after any lapse of time in a reckless manner. Even when no time limit is…

The ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3658/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri P C Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…cisions: • State of Punjab vs. Bhatinda District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. (2007) 11 SCC 363 • State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha and others AIR 1960 SCC 1297 • SantoshKumar Shivgonda patil & Ors vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Anr. (2009) 9 SCC 352 • CIT vs. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (2008) 305 ITR 137 (Del) • CIT vs. Hutchison Telecom Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 320 (Del) Thus, it was submitted by the learned DR that if no time limit is prescribed for filing additional ground, it does not mean that it can be filed after any lapse of time in a reckless manner. Even when no time limit is…

M/S. Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT Cir. 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 193/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri P C Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…cisions: • State of Punjab vs. Bhatinda District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. (2007) 11 SCC 363 • State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha and others AIR 1960 SCC 1297 • SantoshKumar Shivgonda patil & Ors vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Anr. (2009) 9 SCC 352 • CIT vs. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (2008) 305 ITR 137 (Del) • CIT vs. Hutchison Telecom Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 320 (Del) Thus, it was submitted by the learned DR that if no time limit is prescribed for filing additional ground, it does not mean that it can be filed after any lapse of time in a reckless manner. Even when no time limit is…

Hathway C-Net P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Tax Recovery (TDS) 1, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 4261/MUM/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 201Section 201(1)

…the reasonable period would depend upon the nature of the statute, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant factors.” 28 Then, again in the case of Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil and others v/s Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and others reported in (2009) 9 SCC 352, the Honourable Supreme Court followed the ratio in the judgments of Patel Raghav Natha (supra) and the State of Punjab v/s Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers' Union (supra) and reiterated the principle as referred above. 29 The same view appears to have been taken earlier also in the case of the Government of India v/s Citadel Fine Pharm…

Hathway Cable & Datacom Ltd, Mumbai vs. TRO (TDS) RG 1, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 3512/MUM/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 201Section 201(1)

…the reasonable period would depend upon the nature of the statute, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant factors.” 28 Then, again in the case of Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil and others v/s Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and others reported in (2009) 9 SCC 352, the Honourable Supreme Court followed the ratio in the judgments of Patel Raghav Natha (supra) and the State of Punjab v/s Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers' Union (supra) and reiterated the principle as referred above. 29 The same view appears to have been taken earlier also in the case of the Government of India v/s Citadel Fine Pharm…

Ors. v. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Anr. (9 SCC 352) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax