Page 4 of 8 Fairgrowth Investments Ltd. v. Custodian

11 SCC 472Reported decision2004#21970 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2012.

Judgments citing Page 4 of 8 Fairgrowth Investments Ltd. v. Custodian

M/S Thakker Shipping P.Ltd vs. Commr.of Customs(General)

C.A. No.-007696-007696 - 2012Supreme Court30 Oct 2012

Bench: The Appellate Authority”. 3. The Facts Leading To The Present Appeal Are These. A Container Was Intercepted By M & P Wing Of Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai On 11.01.2001. It Was Found To Contain Assorted Electrical & Electronic Goods Of Foreign Origin. The Said Goods Were Imported By M/S Qureshi International & The Cargo Was Cleared From Nhava Sheva. The Clearance Of The Goods Was Handled By M/S Thakker Shipping P. Ltd., The

Section 108Section 129ASection 129BSection 129D(3)Section 129D(4)

…ajasthan and Ors.3, Fairgrowth Investments Ltd. v. Custodian4 and UCO Bank and Anr. v. Rajinder Lal Capoor.5 9. On the other hand, Mr. R.P. Bhatt, learned senior counsel 1 (2000) 120 ELT 201 (Tri-Delhi) 2 (2009) 5 SCC 791 3 (1996) 2 SCC 449 4 (2004) 11 SCC 472 5 (2008) 5 SCC 257 Page 5 JUDGMENT 5 for the respondent, supported the view of the High Court in passing the impugned order. He submitted that the answer to the question under consideration was dependent on construction of Sections 129D and 129A of the Act. 10. Section 129D (omitting the parts not relevant) reads: “S.129D. -Power of…

CIT vs. Mountain Touch Builders P. Ltd

ITA/388/2012HC Delhi17 Jul 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 151Section 34Section 34(3)Section 5

…eneral provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short “the Limitation Act”). The position was reiterated in State of Goa Vs. Western Builders, (2006) FAO(OS)665/2009, 6 SCC 239 and also in Fairgrowth Investments Ltd. Vs. Custodian, (2004) 11 SCC 472. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that Section 5 of the Limitation Act providing for condonation of delay is excluded by Section 34(3) of the Act”. OMP No.388/2012 Page 4 of 8 “41. The question, which still requi…

CIT vs. Creative Travel Pvt Ltd

ITA/389/2012HC Delhi06 Jul 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 151Section 34Section 34(3)Section 5

…stern Builders, (2006) FAO(OS)665/2009, 6 SCC 239 and also in OMP No.389/2012 Page 4 of 8 Fairgrowth Investments Ltd. Vs. Custodian, (2004) 11 SCC 472. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that Section 5 of the Limitation Act providing for condonation of delay is excluded by Section 34(3) of the Act”. “41. The question, which still requires to be answered, is whether a reasonable explanation has been given with regard to delay of 258 days in the refiling of the Objections. Sin…