Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court

3 SCC 682Supreme Court of India1990#2784 most cited

What is Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court authority for?

A decision is considered 'per incuriam' if rendered through inadvertence, such as when a court acts in ignorance of its own previous decisions, a superior court's decision, or statutory provisions. Further, defining a word in a statute implies that it has no other meaning, thereby restricting the scope unless additional categories are expressly included.

42

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer · 3 SCC 682 · per incuriam · statutory interpretation · Section 115JB(2) · Section 14A · Section 143 · definition scope · ignoring precedent · inadvertent decision

Sections most often in play

Section 115JB(2)Section 14Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Issues it is cited on

section 2(7)section 119(1)section 6(3)section 44csection 36(1)(viii)retrospective amendmentdomestic companysection 90(2)section 18tax benefitsection 80p(1)section 80p(4)

Judgments citing Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court

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

…ich comprehends the mischief and its remedy to which the enactment is directed.” "28. The decision of this Court in Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corpn. Ltd. v. Labour Court [Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corpn. Ltd.v. Labour Court, (1990) 3 SCC 682 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 71] , made the said distinction, and explained the literal rule: (SCC p. 715, para 67) “67. The literal rules of construction require the wording of the Act to be construed according to its literal and grammatical meaning, whatever the result may be. Unless otherwise provided, the same word must normally be construed throughout the…

Infor (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 198/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Dr.Sunil Moti Lala, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.Srinivas, DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)

…e in the case of Tata Sons (supra), as learned representatives appearing before the said bench did not bring this judicial precedent to their notice. In the case of Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corpn. Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (1990) 3 SCC 682; (1990) 77 FJR 17 (SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the expression 'per incuriam' thus (at p. 36 of 77 FJR) : 'The Latin expression 'per incuriam' means through inadvertence. A decision can be said generally to be given per incuriam when the Supreme Court has acted in ignorance of a previous decision of its own or when a High Court has acted in…

DCIT, Rohtak vs. Sh. Pankaj Sachdeva, Rohtak

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3609/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Nath, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 80I

…on, in which case it must follow that decision ; or when the decision is given in ignorance of the terms of a statute or rule having statutory force." (6.3) In Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court [1990] 3 SCC 682, the Apex Court explained the expression " per incuriam as under: "The Latin expression per incuriam means through inadvertence. A decision can be said generally to be given per incuriam when the Supreme Court has acted in ignorance of a previous decision of its own or when a High Court has acted in ignorance of a decision of the Supreme Court. "…

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

…omprehends the mischief and its remedy to which the enactment is directed.” "28. The decision of this Court in Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corpn. Ltd. v. Labour Court [Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corpn. Ltd.v. Labour Court, (1990) 3 SCC 682 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 71] , made the said distinction, and explained the literal rule: (SCC p. 715, para 67) “67. The literal rules of construction require the wording of the Act to be construed according to its literal and grammatical meaning, whatever the result may be. Unless 21 otherwise provided, the same word must normally be con…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 467/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…DELHI BENCH: ‘I-1’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No. 467/DEL/2014 (A.Y 2009-10) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Range-6 Vasank Kunj New Delhi New Delhi AAACM0829Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv., Ms. Tejasvi Adv Respondent by Shr. G. C. Srivastava, Adv, Sh. Sanjay Kr. Dass, DR. Date of Hearing 27.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement 17.10.2018 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2009-10 against the ord…

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…

Seven Eleven Education Society, Thane vs. Asst CIT 2, Thane

ITA 1111/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin -DR
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई मुंबई “ई” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं, राम राम लाल लाल नेगी नेगी, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं राम राम लाल लाल नेगी नेगी "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./1111/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 6021/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35DSection 43BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.N. CHARRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.-6021/Del/2012 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs Addl. CIT Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Range-6, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. C.R. Building, PAN-AAACM0829Q New Delhi. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Sh. Ajay Vohra Revenue by Sh. Aprender Kumar Date of Hearing 21.08.2017 Date of Pronouncement 09.11.2017 ORDER PER SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal challenging the order dated 29.10.2012 passed by the Assessing Officer u/…

Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/41231/2015HC Karnataka05 Jan 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

Section 482Section 7

…Bench of the High Court of Patna directed CBI investigation in the Public Interest Litigation which was filed based on a letter of the CAG regarding misappropriation by the accused. Said judgment was upheld by Apex Court vide Judgment reported in (1996) 3 SCC 682 (State of Bihar and Another –vs- Ranchi Zila Samta Party 29 and Another) and connected cases. In those cases, the grievance of the writ petitioners was fraudulent expenditures and drawls in Animal-Husbandry Department of the State Government. While ordering time scheduled investigation, the cases which were in the process of investigati…

Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/41239/2015HC Karnataka05 Jan 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

Section 482Section 7

…Bench of the High Court of Patna directed CBI investigation in the Public Interest Litigation which was filed based on a letter of the CAG regarding misappropriation by the accused. Said judgment was upheld by Apex Court vide Judgment reported in (1996) 3 SCC 682 (State of Bihar and Another –vs- Ranchi Zila Samta Party 29 and Another) and connected cases. In those cases, the grievance of the writ petitioners was fraudulent expenditures and drawls in Animal-Husbandry Department of the State Government. While ordering time scheduled investigation, the cases which were in the process of investigati…

Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/41238/2015HC Karnataka05 Jan 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

Section 482Section 7

…Bench of the High Court of Patna directed CBI investigation in the Public Interest Litigation which was filed based on a letter of the CAG regarding misappropriation by the accused. Said judgment was upheld by Apex Court vide Judgment reported in (1996) 3 SCC 682 (State of Bihar and Another –vs- Ranchi Zila Samta Party 29 and Another) and connected cases. In those cases, the grievance of the writ petitioners was fraudulent expenditures and drawls in Animal-Husbandry Department of the State Government. While ordering time scheduled investigation, the cases which were in the process of investigati…

Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/41232/2015HC Karnataka05 Jan 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

Section 482Section 7

…Bench of the High Court of Patna directed CBI investigation in the Public Interest Litigation which was filed based on a letter of the CAG regarding misappropriation by the accused. Said judgment was upheld by Apex Court vide Judgment reported in (1996) 3 SCC 682 (State of Bihar and Another –vs- Ranchi Zila Samta Party 29 and Another) and connected cases. In those cases, the grievance of the writ petitioners was fraudulent expenditures and drawls in Animal-Husbandry Department of the State Government. While ordering time scheduled investigation, the cases which were in the process of investigati…

Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/41229/2015HC Karnataka05 Jan 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

Section 482Section 7

…Bench of the High Court of Patna directed CBI investigation in the Public Interest Litigation which was filed based on a letter of the CAG regarding misappropriation by the accused. Said judgment was upheld by Apex Court vide Judgment reported in (1996) 3 SCC 682 (State of Bihar and Another –vs- Ranchi Zila Samta Party 29 and Another) and connected cases. In those cases, the grievance of the writ petitioners was fraudulent expenditures and drawls in Animal-Husbandry Department of the State Government. While ordering time scheduled investigation, the cases which were in the process of investigati…

Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/41230/2015HC Karnataka05 Jan 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

Section 482Section 7

…Bench of the High Court of Patna directed CBI investigation in the Public Interest Litigation which was filed based on a letter of the CAG regarding misappropriation by the accused. Said judgment was upheld by Apex Court vide Judgment reported in (1996) 3 SCC 682 (State of Bihar and Another –vs- Ranchi Zila Samta Party 29 and Another) and connected cases. In those cases, the grievance of the writ petitioners was fraudulent expenditures and drawls in Animal-Husbandry Department of the State Government. While ordering time scheduled investigation, the cases which were in the process of investigati…

Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/41237/2015HC Karnataka05 Jan 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

Section 482Section 7

…Bench of the High Court of Patna directed CBI investigation in the Public Interest Litigation which was filed based on a letter of the CAG regarding misappropriation by the accused. Said judgment was upheld by Apex Court vide Judgment reported in (1996) 3 SCC 682 (State of Bihar and Another –vs- Ranchi Zila Samta Party 29 and Another) and connected cases. In those cases, the grievance of the writ petitioners was fraudulent expenditures and drawls in Animal-Husbandry Department of the State Government. While ordering time scheduled investigation, the cases which were in the process of investigati…

Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/41240/2015HC Karnataka05 Jan 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

Section 482Section 7

…Bench of the High Court of Patna directed CBI investigation in the Public Interest Litigation which was filed based on a letter of the CAG regarding misappropriation by the accused. Said judgment was upheld by Apex Court vide Judgment reported in (1996) 3 SCC 682 (State of Bihar and Another –vs- Ranchi Zila Samta Party 29 and Another) and connected cases. In those cases, the grievance of the writ petitioners was fraudulent expenditures and drawls in Animal-Husbandry Department of the State Government. While ordering time scheduled investigation, the cases which were in the process of investigati…

Shri B S Yeddyurappa vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/26395/2015HC Karnataka05 Jan 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

Section 482Section 7

…Bench of the High Court of Patna directed CBI investigation in the Public Interest Litigation which was filed based on a letter of the CAG regarding misappropriation by the accused. Said judgment was upheld by Apex Court vide Judgment reported in (1996) 3 SCC 682 (State of Bihar and Another –vs- Ranchi Zila Samta Party 29 and Another) and connected cases. In those cases, the grievance of the writ petitioners was fraudulent expenditures and drawls in Animal-Husbandry Department of the State Government. While ordering time scheduled investigation, the cases which were in the process of investigati…

Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/41235/2015HC Karnataka05 Jan 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

Section 482Section 7

…Bench of the High Court of Patna directed CBI investigation in the Public Interest Litigation which was filed based on a letter of the CAG regarding misappropriation by the accused. Said judgment was upheld by Apex Court vide Judgment reported in (1996) 3 SCC 682 (State of Bihar and Another –vs- Ranchi Zila Samta Party 29 and Another) and connected cases. In those cases, the grievance of the writ petitioners was fraudulent expenditures and drawls in Animal-Husbandry Department of the State Government. While ordering time scheduled investigation, the cases which were in the process of investigati…

Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/41241/2015HC Karnataka05 Jan 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

Section 482Section 7

…Bench of the High Court of Patna directed CBI investigation in the Public Interest Litigation which was filed based on a letter of the CAG regarding misappropriation by the accused. Said judgment was upheld by Apex Court vide Judgment reported in (1996) 3 SCC 682 (State of Bihar and Another –vs- Ranchi Zila Samta Party 29 and Another) and connected cases. In those cases, the grievance of the writ petitioners was fraudulent expenditures and drawls in Animal-Husbandry Department of the State Government. While ordering time scheduled investigation, the cases which were in the process of investigati…

Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/41234/2015HC Karnataka05 Jan 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

Section 482Section 7

…Bench of the High Court of Patna directed CBI investigation in the Public Interest Litigation which was filed based on a letter of the CAG regarding misappropriation by the accused. Said judgment was upheld by Apex Court vide Judgment reported in (1996) 3 SCC 682 (State of Bihar and Another –vs- Ranchi Zila Samta Party 29 and Another) and connected cases. In those cases, the grievance of the writ petitioners was fraudulent expenditures and drawls in Animal-Husbandry Department of the State Government. While ordering time scheduled investigation, the cases which were in the process of investigati…