P.S. Sathappan (Dead) by LRS v. Andhra Bank Ltd. & Ors.

11 SCC 672Reported decision2004#10072 most cited

What is P.S. Sathappan (Dead) by LRS v. Andhra Bank Ltd. & Ors. authority for?

A judgment must be read in its entirety, and observations should be considered in light of the questions before the court. A decision is not authority for a proposition not considered by the court.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

P.S. Sathappan · judgment interpretation · context of ruling · reading judgments · law of precedents · per incuriam · ratio decidendi

Also reported as

3 SCR 497

Judgments citing P.S. Sathappan (Dead) by LRS v. Andhra Bank Ltd. & Ors.

Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. A.H. Multisoft Pvt. Ltd

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/9/2025HC Delhi30 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

Section 483

…d not be read divorced from the context in which it was used.‖ 147. It is further well settled that a decision is not an authority for the proposition which did not fall for its consideration.‖ 14 (2004) 11 SCC 672 Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:24.01.2026 15:00:44 Signature Not Verified CO.APP. 9/2025 & CO.APP. 10/2025 Page 22 of 51 14. Similarly, in Goan Real Estate & Construction Ltd. v. Union of India15, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court reiterated and elaborated upon the princ…

Quartz Commecial Pvt Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(3)

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/10/2025HC Delhi21 Jan 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA,HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 483

…d not be read divorced from the context in which it was used.‖ 147. It is further well settled that a decision is not an authority for the proposition which did not fall for its consideration.‖ 14 (2004) 11 SCC 672 Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:24.01.2026 15:00:44 Signature Not Verified CO.APP. 9/2025 & CO.APP. 10/2025 Page 22 of 51 14. Similarly, in Goan Real Estate & Construction Ltd. v. Union of India15, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court reiterated and elaborated upon the princ…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Idea Cellular Limited

ITTA/11/2021HC Telangana19 Oct 2023

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Dimple Murarka

ITA/11/2021HC Orissa21 Jul 2023

Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 vs. Imperial Housing Ventures P. Ltd

Accordingly, LPA 362/2020 is allowed,

ITA/86/2022HC Delhi13 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

Section 5Section 5(3)Section 8(3)

…well known, must be read in its entirety and the observations made therein should receive consideration in the light of the questions raised before it. [See Haryana Financial Corpn. v. Jagdamba Oil 20 (2004) 11 SCC 672 Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:25.09.2025 14:40:47 Signature Not Verified LPA 362/2020 & W.P.(CRL) 86/2022 Page 13 of 53 Mills [(2002) 3 SCC 496 : JT (2002) 1 SC 482] , Union of India v. Dhanwanti Devi [(1996) 6 SCC 44] , Nalini Mahajan (Dr.…

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Central II vs. M/S Sharp Mint Limited

The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA/13/2021HC Delhi07 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

Section 124Section 57

…ince Sections 4 and 104 of the CPC expressly save a Letters Patent appeal, the applicability of which stands excluded, the instant intra-court appeals are not maintainable even as an LPA. [See P.S. Sathappan (Dead) by LRS vs. Andhra Bank Ltd. & Ors. (2004) 11 SCC 672 Para 22 and Union of India vs. Mohinder Supply (1962) 3 SCR 497, paras 16 to 18]. 7.4 The 1999 (Amended) TM Act is a self-contained code; since it does not provide for an intra-court appeal, the instant appeals cannot be maintained. [See Himalaya Drug Company vs. S.B.L. Limited, (2012) SCC Online Del 136 (para 51) and Raja Ram Kumar Bharga…

Sanjeev Batish, Panchkula vs. DCIT, Circle, Panchkula

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 723/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Nov 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rohit GoelFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 80Section 80I

…11 Ex 452 : 156 ER 908] ; Partington v. Attorney General [Partington v. Attorney General, (1869) LR 4 HL 100] , Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Spg. & Ginning Mills Federation Ltd. v. CIT [Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Spg. & Ginning Mills Federation Ltd. v. CIT, (2014) 11 SCC 672] , State Bank of Travancore v. CIT [State Bank of Travancore v. CIT, (1986) 2 SCC 11 : 1986 SCC (Tax) 289] and Cape Brandy Syndicate v. IRC [Cape Brandy Syndicate v. IRC, (1921) 1 KB 64] , summed up the law in the following manner: “A taxing statute is to be strictly construed. The well-established rule in the familiar words of Lord Wensleydale, r…

Deputy Inspector General vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (TDS)

ITA/7/2020HC Rajasthan17 Mar 2021

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Shimla vs. M/S Aarham Softronics

C.A. No.-001784-001784 - 2019Supreme Court20 Feb 2019

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

Section 80Section 80I

…1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1784 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 23172 OF 2018) PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SHIMLA .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. AARHAM SOFTRONICS .....RESPONDENT(S) W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1785 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 23176 OF 2018) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1786 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 23179 OF 2018) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1788 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 24678 OF 2018) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1787 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 23414 OF 2018) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1789 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF…

Commnr. of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs. M/S. Dilip Kumar and Company

C.A. No.-003327-003327 - 2007Supreme Court30 Jul 2018

Bench: A Bench Of Two­Judges. The Matter Then Went Before A Three­Judge Bench Consisting One Of Us (Ranjan Gogoi, J.). The Three­ Judge Bench Having Noticed The Unsatisfactory State Of Law As It Stands Today, Opined That The Dicta In Sun Export Case (Supra), Requires Reconsideration & That Is How The Matter Has Been Placed Before This Constitution Bench. 2

…IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3327 OF 2007 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), MUMBAI …APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. DILIP KUMAR AND COMPANY & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T N . V . R A M A N A , J . 1. This Constitution Bench is setup to examine the correctness of the ratio in Sun Export Corporation, Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, (1997) 6 SCC 564 [hereinafter referred as ‘Sun Export Case’ for brevity], namely the question is ­ What is the interpretative rule to be applied while interpreting…